Building Construction in Mughal India The Evidence From Painting

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
IN
MUGHAL INDIA
The Evidence from Painting
AHSAN JAN QAISAR

Profewor
AUOARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY
CENTRE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN HISTORY

Aligarh Muslim University
DELHI
O X FO R D U N IV ERSITY PRESS
BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS
1968
Original from
D igitized by
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Oxford Uxuxrsity P m s, WtUion S tm t, Oxford OX 2 6DP
MEW YORK TORONTO
DELHI BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI
PETAUNO JAYA SINGAPORE HONO KONO TOKYO
NAIROBI DARES SALAAM
MELBOURNE AUCKLAND
and associates in
BERLIN IBADAN
© Ahsan Jan Qaisar 1988
SBN 19 562260 X
Phototypeset by Taj Services Ltd., Nokia

Printed by Rekha Printers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi-110020
and published by S. K. Mookeijee, Oxford University Press
YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110001
Original from
D igitized by
tn L
pu qgo-Sfi
c/<h°
To
BETTY TYERS
in gratitude
D igitized by Goo Original from

Original from
Digitized by Google UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Contents
Acknowledgements •
IX
Abbreviations xi
1 Prologue 1
2 Personnel 5
3 Material 16
4 Techniques and Tools 23
5 Epilogue 34
Appendices
I Thevenot on the Houses of Surat 47
II On Elephants* Statues 48
III On Scaffolding 50
Notes 51
Bibliography 63
Index 67
PLATES following page 72
D igitized by
Original from
J
Plates
MUGHAL PAINTINGS
1. Fathpur Sikri complex being built. Akbamdma.
2. Construction of a palace (early eighteenth century, probably a copy of a seventeenth
century composition.)
3. Fathpur Sikri complex being built. Akbamdma.
4. Agra Fort being built. Akbamdma.
5. Building construction. Jami‘-ui Tawdnkh.
6. Agra Fort being built. Akbamdma.
7. Building construction. (Period: Akbar). Provenance unknown.
8. Building construction. (Period: Akbar). Skchtama.
9. An artist at work (c. 1610-15). Provenance unknown.
NON-MUGHAL PAINTINGS
I Brick kiln. Detail. TashriJi-al Aqwdm.
II Carpenter at work. Detail. Tashnh-al Aqwdm.
III Lime burner and lime kiln. Tashrih-aJ Aqwdm.
IV Building a palace for one of Bahram Gur’s wives. Khams* of Nizami.
V Castle being built. Fifteenth century.
DETAILS
i. Supervisor consulting plan of garden on grid,
it. Block of stone being split.
Hi. Female sieving lime.
iv. Making lime-mortar.
o. Mode of carrying mortar,
w. Mason at work, using trowel.
vii. Block of stone being carried up ramp.
viii. Block of stone being levered up.
Original from
Acknowledgements
I am heavily indebted to Miss Betty Tyers (formerly Senior Museum

Assistant, Indian Department, Victoria & Albert Museum, London) in
numerous—sometimes incredible—ways. She is indeed a rara avis, and I
marvel that such self-effacing and kindly souls still exist in this world that
abounds in selfish and vindictive scoundrels. This work owes much to her and,
hence, it is dedicated to her.
Grateful thanks are also due to Dr Syed Zafar Haider, Lahore, and Mr
Robert Skelton (Keeper, Indian Section, Victoria & Albert Museum, London)
for kindly providing me coloured prints and slides of a painting lodged in the
Lahore Museum, connected with the theme of this work. I have not yet
forgotten the lavish hospitality offered me by Dr Haider and his pretty wife
long ago in 1983.
I must thank the British Museum and the Victoria & Albert Museum
whose treasure of Indian paintings has been abundantly valuable to me,
especially those paintings which are directly related to this book.
I owe an expression of thanks to the Centre of Advanced Study, Department
of History, Aligarh Muslim University, for kindly financing the entire cost of
publication of this book. Special thanks are due to Professor Irfan Habib who
took a personal interest in its publication.
I would be ungrateful if I fail to express my gratitude to Mr Ravi Dayal and
the Oxford University Press, who took more than the usual pains to give this
work its present shape.
And, finally, I hope Rasheeda and Ajmal will be extremely happy to find
their prayers for me answered in the completion of this book.
A. J . Qaisar
June 1988
Original from
D igitized by
A
Original from
Abbreviations
Add. Additional
ATn A ’in-i Akban
AMU Aligarh Muslim University
ASI Archaeological Survey of India
BM British Museum
ElM Epigraphies Indo-MosUmica
JBORS Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
JRIBA Journal o f the Royal Institute of British Architects
JUPHS Journal o f the U. P. Historical Society
Khanua Khamsa of Nizami
Munshat Munshat Namakin
Or. Oriental
Tuzuk Tuzuk-iJahdngtri
V&A Victoria & Albert Museum, London
Original from
D igitized by
A
Original from
1
Prologue
Commenting on crafts in general, Ibn Khaldun writes:

It should be known that the crafts practised by the human species are numerous, be
cause so much labour is continually available in civilization. They are so numerous as to
defy complete enumeration. However, some of them are necessary in civilization or
occupy a noble [position] because of [their] object.1
Architecture, according to Ibn Khaldun, is one of the ‘necessary’ crafts:
‘This is the first and oldest craft of sedentary civilization . . . using houses
and mansions for cover and shelter. . . to avert the harm arising from
heat and cold* by the construction of walls and roofs that intervene be
tween man and ‘those things on all sides’.2 Thus, in his relationship with
nature, ‘house-building’ was man’s first attempt to create an artificial ‘cli
mate* within an enclosed area.
Apart from natural shelters like caves and caverns, seen in ancient
times, the history of artificial shelter has progressed from houses made of
reeds, clay and timber to those of brick and stone during the pre-modem
centuries. In structural terms, there are perhaps four basic dimensions of
large masonry buildings, that is, walls, columns, beams and arches. What
distinguished one architectural form or style from another was the man
ner in which these dimensions were combined ‘with the materials of con
struction and type of decoration*.3 From this point of view, the specific
features of buildings erected by immigrant Muslims in India were arches,
domes, minarets, mihrdb> geometrical and floral patterns, and calligraphy
in the Arabic script on stone, all of which were quite distinct from such
elements in pre-Muslim India.
The buildings in a human settlement are determined by the relative
wealth and poverty of its individual inhabitants;4 thus, houses and monu
ments are constructed with the material easily available in the vicinity.
Only the elite attempt to procure articles and material from distant re
gions, in addition to the local materials. Again, the climate of a culture-
area influences the form of dwelling-houses, a fact recognized by every
architect in the past; even Ibn Khaldun, who was not an architect, was
aware of this aspect.5 In seventeenth-century Mughal Indja, Bernier
Original from
D igitized by l ^ O O g K UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
2 Building Construction in M ughal India
seems to have held a theory bearing on the climate-architecture connex

ion. He was a defender of the peculiarities of the Indian style of house
building, especially of north India, which was not generally appreciated
by Europeans. We cite below Bernier’s entire statement:
In treating of the beauty of these towns, I must premise that I have sometimes been
astonished to hear the contemptuous manner in which Europeans in the Indies speak of
these and other places. They complain that the buildings are inferior in beauty to those
o f the Western world, forgetting that different climates require different styles of
architecture; that what is useful and proper at Paris, London, or Amsterdam, would be en
tirely out of place at Delhi-, insomuch that if it were possible for any one of those great
capitals to change place with the metropolis of the Indies, it would become necessary to
throw down the greater part of the city, and to rebuild it on a totally different plan.
Without doubt, the cities of Europe may boast great beauties; these, however, are of an
appropriate character, suited to a cold climate. Thus Delhi also may possess beauties
adapted to a warm climate.6
Elaborating on the ‘warm climate*, Bernier continues:
T he heat is so intense in Hindoustan, that no one, not even the King, wears stockings; the
only cover for the feet being babouches [paposh], or slippers, while the head is protected by
a small turban, of the finest and most delicate materials. The other garments are prop
ortionately light. During the summer season, it is scarcely possible to keep the hand on
the wall of an apartment, or the head on a pillow. For more than six successive months,
everybody lies in the open air without covering—the common people in the streets, the
merchants and persons o f condition sometimes in their courts or gardens, and some
times on their terraces, which are first carefully watered.7
And, then, a last comment for the European:
Now, only suppose the streets of S. Jaques or S. Denis transported hither, with their close
houses and endless stories; would they be habitable? or would it be possible to sleep in
them during the night, when the absence of wind increases the heat to suffocation? Sup
pose one ju st returned on horseback, half dead with the heat and dust, and drenched, as
usual, in perspiration; and then imagine the luxury of squeezing up a narrow dark staii>
case to the fourth or fifth story, there to remain almost choked with heat. In the Indies,
there is no such troublesome task to perform.8
No wonder, then, that in a hot country like India a house was considered
beautiful if it was ‘capacious, and if the situation be airy and exposed on
all sides to the wind*. As Bernier adds:
A good house has its courtyards, gardens, trees, basins of water, small jets d'eau in the
hall or at the entrance, and handsome sub-terraneous apartments which arc furnished
with large fans, and on account of their coolness are fit places for repose from noon until
four or five o’clock when the air becomes suffocatingly warm. Instead of these cellars
many persons prefer Kas-kanyas [khas-khdna], that is, small and neat houses made of
straw or odoriferous roots placed commonly in the middle of a parterre, so near to a re
Original from
Digitized by
Prologue 3
servoir o f water that the servants may easily moisten the outside by means of water
brought in skins.10
The ‘warm climate* even affected the details of housing. Thus, Bernier
continues:
Indeed, no handsome dwelling is ever seen without terraces on which the family may
sleep during the night. They always open into a large chamber into which the bedstead
is easily moved in case of rain, when thick clouds of dust arise, when the cold air is felt
at break o f day, or when it is found necessary to guard against those light but penetrat
ing dews which frequently cause a numbness in the limbs and induce a species of
paralysis.11
Speaking about the regulations for buildings, Abul Fazl naturally takes
building construction to be an urban phenomenon. He says:
People that are attached to the world will collect in towns, without which there would
be no progress. Hence His Majesty plans splendid edifices, and dresses the work of his
mind and heart in the garment of stone and clay. Thus, mighty fortresses have been
raised, which protect the timid, frighten the rebellious, and please the o b edient. . . 12
But Abul Fazl totally ignores the role of the Mughal nobility in erecting
buildings. They might not have built a Taj Mahal or Red Fort, but they
were active builders nonetheless. Pelsaert observes about Agra:
T he luxuriance of the groves all round makes it resemble a royal park rather than a city,
and everyone acquired and purchased the plot of land which suited or pleased him
b e s t. . . . T he breadth of the city is by no means so gTeat as the length, because every
one has tried to be close to the river bank, and consequently the water-front is occupied
by the costly palaces of all the famous lords, which make it appear very gay and magnifi
cent, and extend for a distance of 6 kos or V /i Holland miles. I will record the chief of
these palaces in order.13
Pelsaert furnishes the names of more than a dozen nobles and members
of the royal household who owned houses along the river Jam una.14 Else
where he gives the names of another set of nobles who had built their
houses a little away from the river.15 But what happened to the palaces of
these nobles? There is hardly any evidence of the existence of aristocratic
dwellings of the seventeenth-century16 Mughal elite, apart from Pelsaert’s
comment, that in the reign of Jahangir 'roads leading to the cities are
strewn with fallen columns of stone’; he laments that ‘one cannot contem
plate them without pity or distress because of their ruined state.’17 His ex
planation for this neglect is startling:
Once the builder is dead, no one will care for the buildings; the son will neglect his
lather's work, the mother her son’s, brothers and friends will take no care for each
Original from
D igitized by
other’s buildings . . . . Consequently, it may be said that if all these buildings and erec
tions were attended to and repaired for a century, the lands of every city, and even vil
lage, would be adorned with m onum ents.. . I8
What lay behind this amazing indifferent attitude? (True, such seeming
negligence could not have been afforded by other social groups.) Pelsaert
explains: ‘Everyone tries as far as possible, to erect a new building of his
own, and establish his own reputation alongside that of his ancestors.*19
This is not the place to discuss the impact of values on building activity
among the elite, but it is certain that such values were a continuation of
long-established Indian traditions. The observation of a Chinese traveller
on Kashmir in a . d . 732 echoes Pelsaert’s:
According to the law of the Five Indies, from the king, the royal consort and the princes
down to the chiefs and their wives, all build monasteries separately in accordance with
their respective capacities and abilities.Each of them builds his own temple, but does
not construct it jointly. They say when each person has one’s own meritorious virtues,
what is the necessity of a joint effort?20
Thus, there are numerous factors influencing building construction,
ranging from the topography to the basic materials available, from the na
ture of human settlements to the existing technical knowhow, and from
types of climate to differing social values. For the present, we are con
cerned with only a few selected aspects. What follows is an attempt at in
terpreting paintings, especially of the Mughal School, that relate to build
ing construction. This exercise is made in the belief that the history of
crafts and technology should be sustained by the evidence of visual pro
jections, especially where literary and archaeological sources fail us. Our
treatment of the subject is limited to the evidence the paintings offer, ex
cept where we have chosen, as occasion demands, to use other sources in
order to elaborate, establish or add to our pictorial data.
Original from
D igitized by
2
Personnel
The grandeur and style of India’s Muslim monuments have always

aroused great interest amongst scholars of medieval India. The works of
Cunningham, Fergusson, E. W. Smith, Havcll, Percy Brown and others
on Sultanate and Mughal architecture have become classics, and their au
thors deserve our gratitude. However, the overwhelming concern, almost
obsession, is with architectural features alone, with occasional debates on
the origins and symbolism of such features, thrown in. While these studies
are invaluable, equally im portant aspects like organization and per
sonnel, the materials, tools and techniques used, have more often than not
been overlooked or touched upon only superficially.
Archaeology relating to Mughal monuments has recently made some
welcome progress, but the take-ofT stage still appears to be distant.1 In
fact, archaeology cannot alone answer the type of question being asked at
present: for example, it is not competent to tell us how heavy materials
were hoisted up to build walls, etc., at Agra and Fathpur Sikri; nor can it
throw light on the administrative, organizational and economic aspects of
building construction. To answer these and similar questions, a multidis
ciplinary approach is essential.
Studies in recent years by ‘non-archaeologists’ do not mark a radical
departure from the traditional treatment of the subject. Rizvi and Flynn’s
book on Fathpur Sikri is unsatisfactory in this respect,2 since it follows the
same style as E. W. Smith’s,3 adding embellishments with a plethora of
‘dissents’ from the latter. R. Nath takes note of fresh dimensions, but
somewhat uncritically.4 We are not of course concerned here with ‘cofTce
table’ productions, which hardly merit the attention of scholars.
Apart from archaeological sources, there are at least three other chan
nels of information: literary sources, Mughal paintings, and extant tradi
tional building crafts. It is true that literary sources provide scanty
material relating to the questions framed above; nonetheless, as we shall
see presently, they are of substantial utility on some aspects of our theme.
It is astonishing that the portion of A*tn-i Akbari on building regulations
has yet to be exploited fully by historians of Mughal architecture.5
Mughal paintings have been studied from various angles, but a fuller
Original from
D igitized by
analysis with regard to building construction is still awaited. The third

channel of information is the most neglected: traditional crafts still exist
in certain pockets which were once under the influence of Muslim culture.
What a scholar like Hans E. Wulff6 has done for Persian crafts had yet to
be done for India. However, a beginning was made by Moulvi Zafar-ur-
Rahman, when he compiled Farhang Istaldhdt-i Peshawaran (A Glossary o f
Technical Terms used in Indian Arts and Crafts).1 Despite the obvious limita
tions of a glossary, which leads to details often being avoided, and second
ly, of concerning itself mostly with north India, its value cannot be de
nied.
Mughal paintings will form the core of our present study, with assist
ance sought from contemporary literary sources as well as from lexicons
and glossaries in order to support, clarify and elaborate the evidence of
these paintings. We possess so far thirteen paintings that depict building
construction: three pertain to Agra, three to Fathpur Sikri, while the rest
are not connected with any specific Mughal town in India. It must be
pointed out at the outset that most of these paintings depict royal build
ings and, thus, that they limit the scope of our study to aristocratic
groups. Nevertheless, our knowledge is enriched by a study of them.
II
We first take up problems connected with organization and personnel. In
Plate 1 (Fathpur Sikri), we find on the left a bearded human figure within
an enclosure. The man, well-dressed and dignified in appearance, sits on
a blue carpet with decorative designs. Such blue carpets invariably
appear in Mughal paintings associated with the Mughal elite. Four peo
ple attend upon the noble, one serving food, while a number of building
workers outside the enclosure are busy with their tasks. Four horses with
grooms outside the enclosure further establish his noble status. Who is he?
The same question applies to Plate 2, where a corpulent person, followed
by an attendant holding a flywhisk, is shown inspecting a construction
site. For an answer, we must turn to literary sources.
Persian sources use general terms for the entire building stafT: ‘amala wa
fa'la-i ‘imdrat, ‘uhdddardn-i ‘imdrat, sarkdrddrdn-i ‘imarat, mutasaddiydn-i ‘im
arat, kdrdgahan-i ‘imdrat, etc.8 The entire staff, however, could be divided
into two broad groups: officers and master builders; and workers and arti
sans. Let us begin with the first category.
A fourteenth-century chronicle speaks of the mtr ‘imdrat, under whom
one Malik Ghazi was appointed as the shahna (overseer), who carried out
the construction of numerous royal buildings.9 An administrative manual,
Original from
D igitized by
Personnel 7
Heddyat-ul Qawd'id (c. 1715),10 briefly spells out the qualifications and
functions of the mir ‘imdral: first, he must be versed in accountancy or,
alternatively, employ an accountant; secondly, he must be able to ascer
tain the number of bricks (khist) required according to fixed units of
measurement; thirdly, he should be aware of the builder’s wages (me'mcir)
for the work to be accomplished; fourth, he should know the prices of
building materials, and the wages of various artisans. But there is a big
gap between the fourteenth and the eighteenth centuries. It is truly sur
prising that none of the three chronicles of Akbar’s reign, Abul Fazl’s
Akbamama, Nizamuddin Bakhshi’s Tabaqdt-i Akbari, and Badauni's
Muntakhab-ut Tawankhy mention this term at all. Even the A*in abstains
from giving any information on the mir ‘imdrai, even in the section dealing
with building operations. Since six of the paintings under study depict
Agra and Fathpur Sikri, we would naturally like to know who supervised
construction at these sites. The Agra Fort, we are told by Abul Fazl, was
completed under the management (ihtimam) of Qasim Khan, a mansabddr
of 3,000 zdty who held the office of mir bahr o ban. Other sources mention
him only as mir bahr.u But the A ’in does not even hint at such a function
for the mir bahr in its section on this office:12 and it has no entry on mir
bahr.
A variant of one Akbari source, Munshdt o Ruq‘dt-i Namakin, which
contains specimens of the standard forms of royal orders (manshur) in ex
tremely ornate style in connexion with the appointments of officers, con
tains an order from which we learn that the mir bahr was concerned with
the development of agriculture, gardening and the digging of canals and
streams in the khdlisa area.13 It is well-known that gardening and the
water-supply system formed a basic part of housing complexes of the
Mughal aristocracy; yet it was only a part of the total building activity.
Qasim Khan was chosen to be the superintendent (sdhib-i ihtimam) of the
building of Agra Fort because of his reputation as a ‘military engineer’ as
well as builder. When Surat was besieged Akbar considered him to be his
‘best pupil’ in preparing sdbdt (a covered passage), and mines {naqab
zadany4 with gunpowder. Since Qasim Khan was later made governor of
Agra Fort, Monserrate comments that he was ‘raised to that exalted
dignity from the humble position of a sapper.’15 In 1583, Akbar appointed
four people to look after the royal buildings jointly; one of whom was
Qasim K han.16 He is also credited with the construction of roads and
bridges in the most difficult terrain for military operations.17 All these
tasks were performed while he was mir bahr o ban.
As for Fathpur Sikri, even the name of the superintendent of construc-
Original from
Digitized by L j O O g L C UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
tion here is not known to us. In the words of V. A. Smith, ‘The names of
those brilliant artists, who adopted no precautions to secure the applause
of posterity, have perished utterly.’18 It is thus surprising to find E. W.
Smith lending his authority, albeit half-heartedly, to the popular belief
current among residents of Fathpur Sikri during the second half of the
nineteenth century that the tomb outside the so-called Tehra Darwaza to
the south-west of the city was built in memory of Bahauddin, ‘the over
seer of the works at Fathpur Sikri, who died in Jahangir’s reign.’19 This
opinion gets no support from any authentic source.20 The fact that
Bahauddin was a lime-burner (chuna paz) might have led to the belief; he
died in 1610-11, but it is doubtful that he ever served Akbar.21
Shah Jah an ’s chroniclers give us the names of two nobles, Mukarramat
Khan and Mir ‘Abdul Karim, under whose supervision (ba sar-kan) the
Taj Mahal was completed.22 The Jam i‘ Masjid of Delhi is reported to
have been built under the management of three nobles, Sa‘dullah Khan,
Khalilullah Khan and Fazil Khan.23 The Red Fort complex was erected
under three successive governors of Delhi—Ghairat Khan, Allahwardl
Khan and Mukarramat Khan.24 In all these instances, the term mir *im-
drat is not recorded in our sources. In respect of the Red Fort, ‘Amal-i Salih
mentions ustdd Ahmad, the chief architect (sar dmad-i me1mdrdn), who initi
ated construction in association with Ghairat Khan, the then governor of
Delhi.25 The Bddshdhndma of Waris mentions an ustdd Hamid also.26
These references to two ustdd architects (me‘mar) provide a clue, for Mun-
shdt contains an order (manshur dar tajunz mansab me‘mdn) relating to the
office of the chief architect (ustddfaldn me'mdr).21 This specimen order also
reveals that separate architects were appointed to different regions (man
sab mt'mdri weldyat faldn). Further, diverse sorts of building workers de
scribed in the above manshur were put under such an architect’s charge,
similar to the arrangement in the fourteenth century with respect to the
mir *imdrat, 2 8 Is it, then, proper to suggest that the chief architect under
Akbar could be equated with the mir *imdrat? After all, Akbar’s reign was
a period of administrative evolution and experiment. For example, Ibn
Hasan is of the opinion that the mir sdmdn under Akbar did not have the
rank and position held subsequently under Jahangir and Shah Jahan, and
that it was only later that his functions and status acquired clear dimen
sions; which is why they have gone unrecorded in Akbari sources.29 Post-
Akbar developments in the office of the mir ‘imdrat can be shown from the
Hedayal-ul Qawd'id where the mir ‘imdrat is distinct from the melmdr or master-
mason.
Jahangir mentions a Ma‘mur Khan who constructed his palace in
Original from
D igitized by
l
Personnel 9
Lahore.30 An inscription over an archway at the palace put up by

M a‘mur Khan confirms this.31 But both sources fail to designate him as
the rmr ‘imarat. The Iqbdlnama-i Jahangin, however, recognizes him as the
rmr ‘imarat during the reign of Jahangir.32 And midway between Jahangir
and Aurangzeb, the ‘Amal-i Salih mentions Mir ‘Abdul Karim as the mir
*imarat of Lahore.33 He must have held this office in the fourth regnal year
of Shah Jahan, which is corroborated by an inscription put by him over
the Hathipol gate of the Lahore Fort in which he takes credit for the com
pletion of the Shah Burj.34 Waris speaks of GhazI Beg as the mir ‘imarat at
Kabul.33 Again, ‘Amal-i Salih refers to one Ruhullah Khan who held this
ofTice at the centre in Shah Jahan’s 22nd regnal year.36
These instances show the practice of appointing a rmr *imarat not only at
the centre but also in different regions of the empire, reminding us of a
similar practice with regard to architects during Akbar’s reign. Mughal
nobles, too, appointed their own officers for building purposes: Chan-
drabhan Brahman mentions an isar Das who served as the mutasaddi ‘im-
drat under Afzal Khan,37 once the diwan of Shah Jahan.
We have already noted that construction of the Taj began under the su
pervision of Mukarramat Khan and Mir ‘Abdul Karim. The former also
completed the building of the Red Fort in Delhi. From the start of Shah
Ja h a n ’s reign, he served as the diwan of the buyutat (royal kdrkhdnas and
stores).38 He was given four posts in the 8th regnal year—the diwani, bakh-
sfugiri, wdqia*nawisi and buyutdft of Agra.39 He became the khan sdmdn in
the 15th regnal year with the rank of 3,000 zdt and 3,000 sawdry*° and con
tinued to hold this office even during his governorship of Delhi. The khan
sdmdn or mir sdmdn was the highest officer of the buyutat, and one of his
duties was to oversee the ‘plans of, or expenditure on, lodgings and build
ings belonging to the state’.41 Thus, the royal buildings department came
under the general supervision of the buyutat whose officers ‘noted the num
ber of bricks, the size of stones and the quantity of other material used in
an area of some particular dimensions, every day.’42 We learn from the
Kalimat Taiyabdt that Aurangzeb once issued orders that the builders
(me’mdran) at Aurangabad should remove mud, etc. (gil o la’i) from a large
tank and fill it with clean water; he also specified that expenses should be
paid out of the buyutat accounts.43 Thus, the appointment of Mukarramat
Khan as the superintendent of construction of the Red Fort was quite in
order, as he held the post of mir sdmdn. As for Sa‘dullah Khan, he had
served as the mir sdmdn** in the 7th regnal year of Shah Jahan. Fazil Khan
was the khan sdmdn when he supervised the construction of the Jam i‘ Mas-
jid in Shah Jah an ’s 21st regnal year, under Sa‘dullah Khan.43 Iradat

Khan, the jdgirddr oipargana Jahangirabad (Kashmir), was once entrusted

with the supervision of construction works there (sarbardh ‘imdrat) by
Jahangir.46 He was appointed to the post of mir sdmdn in the 10th regnal
year, which he relinquished five years later to take up the governorship of
Kashmir.47 However, Ghairat Khan and Allahwardi Khan fall in a diffe
rent category: the construction of the Red Fort was initially put under
them successively, perhaps out of consideration for the fact that both were
governors of the region concerned.
The picture that emerges is that the mir ‘imdrat was an officer of the
buyutdt, serving under the mir sdmdn, but at the same time was the head of
the royal building department attached to the buyutdt. And it is in the lat
ter capacity that he was assisted by other subordinate officials in his
department.
‘Arif Qandahari (henceforth ‘Arif) mentions the term ddrogha with refer
ence to construction work at Agra under Qasim Khan.48 The ddrogha was
an ubiquitous officer in every Imperial department. Mir ‘Abdul Karim
was appointed ddrogha ‘imdrat in the 6th regnal year of Shah Jahan at the
centre.49 Earlier, he had held the office of mir ‘imdrat at Lahore. He was
replaced by a certain Mutallib in the 9th regnal year,50 but very soon the
latter, too, was replaced by Ghazl Beg.51 We also hear of a Haider Malik
Kashmiri as the ddrogha ‘imdrat at Vimag in Kashmir.52
Let us now return to our query about the identity of the person sitting
under the pavilion in the enclosure in Plate 1. He may belong to any one
of five categories, that is, a high-ranking Mughal mansabddr who was also
the supreme commander of construction work, a mir sdmdn, a mir ‘imdrat, a
chief architect, or ddrogha ‘imdrat. Whichever he was, the painting estab
lishes the presence of an official connected with building operations at the
site itself for personal inspection. As for Plate 2, the person inspecting the
construction with his attendant holding a fly-whisk behind him, may be
either a very exalted noble or the sovereign himself, we do not know. Did
Mughal sovereigns register their interest in building by visiting the site?
Havell observes that Akbar’s interest was ‘mostly shown in a careful con
trol of the expenditure’.53 At best, he thinks, Akbar ‘like any other ruler of
his stamp, consulted his master-builders and gave general directions for
the arrangement and accommodation he required . . . ' Havell, thus, con
cludes that Akbar did not concern himself ‘intimately with the art of
building’.54 But this opinion is contradicted by Plate 3 which depicts
Akbar’s visit to a construction site, accompanied by officials and atten
dants. Two pages are seen attending upon him with a fly-whisk and a
large, decorated fan. Akbar is shown absorbed in conversation with a
Original from
D igitized by
Personnel 11
stoneworker, his left hand stretched towards the latter in a gesture either of in
struction or to point out some flaw in his work. What more convincing
evidence could there be of a sovereign’s ‘intimate’ concern in the ‘art of
building’? It is no accident, then, if Monserrate comments that ‘Zelaldi-
nus (Akbar) is so devoted to building that he sometimes quarries stone
himself, along with other workmen: Nor does he shrink from watching
and even himself practising, for the sake of amusement, the craft of an
ordinary artisan.’55
Ill
Apart from the nur ‘imdrat and the ddrogha, there was also an accountant
for royal buildings (mushrif‘imdrdt-i pddshdhS). Describing the career of Rai’
Govardhan Surajdhwaj, the famous diwan of Asaf Khan, a contemporary
source reveals that, since Rai’ Govardhan came from a poor family, he
once worked as a scribe under H ar Rai’, the mushrif (auditor, treasurer) of
the royal buildings, on a monthly salary of six rupees. As a scribe, Gov
ardhan maintained the muster-roll or register (siydha) of labourers.56 A
scribe can be seen in Plate 4 (right margin, middle), which depictJ a
standing figure noting something on a ledger, while an ordinary labourer
faces him with one hand half-outstretched, in a pleading gesture. Yet
another scribe is seen standing near Akbar in Plate 4, below him and on
the right, holding a roll of paper in his left hand. Besides scribes,
site overseers or supervisors, too, are noticed in our paintings invariably
holding the traditional staff or long baton, overseeing workers and arti
sans. Their outstretched hands show them commanding, and controlling
operations. Sometimes they appear with a staff raised threateningly, and
at least in one instance (Plate 3) a worker is about to be beaten up even as
he tries to take the blow on his half-stretched hands. In an Akbamdma
miniature in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, a worker is shown falling
at the feet of one of the overseers, perhaps begging forgiveness.57 These ex
amples clearly prove the power exercised by site-overseers. Strict control
was inevitable at the construction site to co-ordinate operations and avoid
idle moments. In the fourteenth century, Sultan Feroze Shah appointed
an alert superintendent (shahna chdldk) over each category of worker con
nected with construction {dor har td’ifa kangaran-i ‘imdrat).58 This practice
must have continued under the Mughals, too.
Before we come to chief architects and engineers, let us take up the
second group of the building staff categorized earlier. They consisted of
workers and artisans of diverse sorts collected at the construction site,
both local and those brought from different regions of the country. A brief
D igitized by Google Original from

A
list of workers is given by ‘Arif.59 Abul Fazl’s list is long but incomplete.60
Additional information comes from other literary sources.61 But it is only
from paintings that we come to know of female labour at the site (Plates
3, 4, 5 and 7). However, no child labour can be noticed. O ur paintings
also help us identify skilled and non-skilled labour: the latter, often scanti
ly clothed, run about doing sundry jobs. Other professionals, not building
workers but connected with building activity, are also observed (bullock-
cart drivers, for example).
According to Abul Fazl,62 some workers and artisans worked by the job
(ijdra) for definite tasks of specified dimensions and measurements, while
others were daily-wagers (rozjnaddr). Ijdra workers probably got slightly
higher wages, although comparison with the earnings of daily-wagers
could be confusing. Moreover, wages were of three grades in the same
craft, the amount varying a little. European sources distinguish between
‘ordinary’ and ‘superior’ labourers.63 Logically, differential wages in the
same craft must have been related to the artisan’s skill, but we do not
know exactly how it was determined. Sometimes wages depended on the
specialization of a particular artisan: for example, a sangtardsh could be a
mere stonecutter (sddakdr) or a skilled stone-carver (naqqdsh). Perhaps,
for the same reason, Abul Fazl distinguishes between sawyers (arrakash)
and general carpenters (darudgar, najjdr)y and their wages thus differ. In
the case of water-carriers (abkash), wages varied, depending upon whether
the carrier supplied water for mortar or distributed potable water to
workers at the site. In one instance, a worker’s wages varied with changes
in the season: for example, the diver or well-cleaner (ghota khur) was given
more in winter than in summer.
In Europe it was normal for wages to vary according to different sea
sons of the year, reflecting ‘the number of working hours, dictated by the
hours of daylight*. Wages were 5d a day in summer, 4d in spring and au
tumn, and only 3d in winter, in the thirteenth century.64 The average
working day was twelve hours for the six summer months, and nine hours
for the six winter months. For India, we have neither information on
working hours nor on relative wages in the context of the length of day in
different seasons. Moreover, we also lack information on short breaks dur
ing the working day for lunch or snacks. Workers in Europe were permit
ted ‘half an hour’s break for breakfast, an hour and a half for combined
mid-day meal and siesta, and a further half an hour for a late afternoon
snack and drinks’.65 Workers in India must have been allowed at least a
lunch and ‘time-ofT to drink water. Despite the apparent discipline im
posed by staff-wielding overseers at the work site, workers stole a few mo-
D igitized by L j O O g L c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Personnel 13
merits for snacks during the course of work. Plate 6 gives a rare glimpse of
this act—a worker buying ‘take-way* preparations from a hawker, who is
shown weighing them on a pair of scales (middle right margin). The eat
ables are kept in small bags, like those used by grocers today. We can
identify only two items—-jaggery cakes or balls and perhaps parched
grain. In Plate 4 (right margin, above city wall) and Plate 7 (upper right
comer), we see workers drinking water in the traditional manner, by cup
ping their palms as the waterman pours out water from leather bags. In
one case (Plate 6, bottom left corner), a worker can be noticed washing
his clothes by a river bank near the site.
T he number of workers employed in constructing royal buildings in
medieval India was often enormous. Sultan ‘Alauddin Khaljl engaged
70,000 workers (muhtarfa ‘imarat) for his buildings.66 Babur claimed that
‘680 men worked on my buildings at Agra and of Agra stone-cutters only;
while 1491 stone-cutters worked daily on my buildings* at Agra, Sikri,
Biana, Dholpur and Kol.67 Three to four thousand artisans, labourers and
other functionaries worked daily to construct the Agra Fort under
Akbar.68 For this fort, however, ‘Arifs break-up of workers is
informative:69 2,000 stonecutters and 2,000 mortar-and-lime-makers (gil-
kar o chunakdr) worked daily. In addition, 8,000 labourers (mazdur) were
employed to supply stone and lime. It is reported that 5,000 men worked
daily to build the Jam i‘ Masjid of Delhi during Shah Jahan*s reign.70 And
if Tavernier is to be believed, ‘twenty thousand men worked incessantly’
to construct the T aj.71 There is an opinion that ‘an important advantage
enjoyed by Islamic architects was that even the biggest mosques and
tombs were usually erected during an amazingly short time.* The reason
for this feat is ascribed to the ability of the Muslim ruler to ‘assemble vast
numbers of workers and quantities of material from his widespread
domains’.72 There is a hint of this in Barani who, in his exaggerated style,
says that builders under Sultan ‘Alauddin Khaljl were able to erect a
palace within two or three days, and the fort walls (hisar) within two
weeks.73 Monserrate notes that under Akbar ‘a very large peristyle, sur
rounded with colonnades, two hundred feet square (was built) in three
months, and some circular baths three hundred feet in circuit, with
dressing-rooms, private apartments and many water-channels in six
months.’74 Speed of work apart, we can easily visualize the complex na
ture of organizational control and discipline, in view of the vast number of
workmen.
D igitized by
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN J
IV
A few measures were necessary before actual construction began. Se
lection of the site of the building was the foremost task for engineers
(muhandis), architects (meHnar) and builders (banna). The transfer of the
capital from Agra to Delhi under Shah Jahan, according to one contem
porary historian, had a rationale behind it,75 and the final selection of the
Red Fort complex in the vicinity of Nurgarh was the result of much deli
beration (pizohish bisiyar).76 After selection of the site, the next step was
the design and planning of the building. Here, architectural draught-
manship was required. The practice of putting the plan on paper was
widespread in the Islamic culture-area.77 Ibn Khaldun advises architects
to make use of geometry (engineering), and to understand geometrical
proportions and principles.78 But knowledge of mathematics, too, was
essential. No wonder, then, our sources often refer to architect-engineers
with appellations like astarldb shinds, aqtidas nazry and hindsa parddz (those
who understood the mechanism of the astrolabe and knew geometry and
mathematics).79 The plan or tarah of the proposed building was drawn on
paper. Tarah was a general term used both in painting and architecture
for the traced outline or plan. The Munshdt includes tardhi as one of the
functions of the chief m e 'm d r Once, when Shah Jahan noticed a covered
market (bazar musaqqaj) in octangular form after the fashion of Baghdad
(musamman Baghadddi), he so liked it that he despatched the tarah of the
market to Mukarramat Khan, then governor of Delhi and supervisor of
the Red Fort project, with the instructions that a similar covered market
should be constructed in the fort.81 We are also told that the erection of
this fort was carried out according to the tarah ratified by Shah Jahan.82
On the eve of constructing the khwdbgdh (bedroom) of Shah Jahan in the
Lahore Fort, Asaf Khan (Nur Jahan’s brother) placed a number of tarahs
prepared by master (ustdd) architects before the Emperor; only one was
approved by the Emperor. Later, the approved tarah was handed over to
engineers (muhandis) to carry out construction accordingly.83 Asaf Khan,
as the sources point out, knew the subtleties of tardhi.84 A document refers
to one Jawaharmal, a metmdry who prepared the tarah of the house (haveK)
of a dead noble on Aurangzeb’s orders.85 Our sources also refer to the
tarah in connexion with the Taj Mahal. Another term used occasionally
was naqsha (map, plan); the ‘Amal-i Salih uses both tarah and naqsha,86
Once when the imperial forces invested a fort in the Deccan, the naqsha of
the fort and the murchal (watch-tower) were laid before Aurangzeb who,
after examining them, sent instructions about how to assault the fort.87
Original from
D igitized by
Personnel 15
We are told that the naqsha of Baghdad and Isfahan were available at the
Mughal court.88
Pictorial evidence clearly establishes the practice of preparing larahs
under the Mughals. A painting in the Babumdma depicts Babur inspecting
the laying-out of a garden. A man, perhaps the chief architect, holds a
large sheet of paper, apparendy mounted on a board. A close-up reveals a
criss-cross of straight lines on the paper; in fact, it is a graph-sheet (Plate i,
detail). The actual plan, however, has not been shown by the artist.89 That
such larahs with a ‘grid of squares’ were frequendy prepared in Islamic
countries is attested by the material preserved in the archives of the Insti
tute of the Oriental Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan (USSR).90 There is
no doubt that toroA-making was a contribution of immigrant Muslims in
India. Wooden models, too, though rarely, are recorded to have been pre
pared in Islamic countries.91 There is a legend of a wooden model of the
Taj,92 but contemporary records do not substantiate it.
Original from
D igitized by
3
M aterial
As for building material (masdlih Hmarat), clay (gil), bricks (khist, djur),
stones (sang) and wood were the basic units. The stone was of various types
and colours: red (sang surkh)> yellow (sang zard)y white (rang safid)y black
(sang siyah), marble (sang marmar) of various colours, sang Musat sang abn
or sang Maryam, sang yashm, sang mahtdbi, etc.1 Stone was also used for
purposes other than 'building units’: for example, in making stone doors.2
It appears that stone doors worked on ‘hinges on the mortice and tenon-
pivot principle*.3 At any rate, as far as the buildings of the elite are con
cerned, our sources leave the impression that red sandstone and white
marble were in greater use than other material. As is well-known, a large
number of semi-precious stones were also employed for decorative
purposes, *aqtq (agate) and marjdn (coral), for example.4
Stone was normally used by the Mughal elites, especially when buildings
were constructed near quarries. Describing the construction of the Agra
Fort under Akbar, ‘A r if reports that the red stone of Fathpur Sikri was
brought to Agra in a thousand carts (gardun),5 perhaps daily. Plate 6 depicts
one such cart, with solid wheels, drawn by two bullocks on the work-site.
The stone has already been unloaded, but part of a hewn block is still lying
in the cart. However, the transport of stone or other material from distant
places to the site was not a problem for the elites of Agra. ‘A r if indicates
that irregular broken pieces of stone (sang ghulula) were brought from Delhi
in three hundred boats to the worksite at Agra by the bank of the Jam una.6
Plates 4 and 6 show boats full of these stones near the construction site.
Peter Mundy speaks of the use of the red sandstone of the Fathpur Sikri
region: ‘Where are the quarries of those redstones, which supply all their
parts for the principal buildings, as the castle of Agra, this place, Great
mens* houses, tombs, etc.*7 Perhaps the best marble came from M akrana.8
Peter Mundy tells us that from Narwar ‘are brought all your Marble
stones, wherewith the King is supplied for his buildings, there being no less
than 500 carts coming and going in its carriage.
Bricks were also naturally used. Abul Fazl mentions three kinds of
Original from
D igitized by
M aterial 17
bricks: baked (pukhta), half-baked (mm pukhta) and unbaked (khdm).xo The
extensive use of bricks in India after the arrival of the Muslims might
have resulted from the need to make true arches and domed or vaulted
roofings. However, bricks were a boon for urban middle-class housing in
the plains that were distant from stone quarries.11 Even at Agra, Finch
noticed the use of both stone and brick.12 The poorer sections of society
used half-baked or unbaked bricks, or simply lumps of mud for raising
w alls.13 As for clay, Abul Fazl refers to burnt tiles (khaprel), both plain
and enamelled, which were used for the roofs of houses as ‘protection
against heat and cold'. He also mentions qulba or water-spouts made of
clay.14
Another important building material was wood. The A ’tn gives a list of
seventy-two kinds of wood, but adds that only eight of them were in
general use. Sisua wood was considered by Abul Fazl to be ‘peerless in its
beauty and durability'.13 European sources refer to teak (sdgwdn) as excel
lent for building houses, being ‘the firmest’ against ‘worms and
putrefaction’.16 It is surprising that Abul Fazl excludes sdgwdn from the
list of the most-used woods. This may be because sdgwdn perhaps did not
grow in the areas north of the rivers Narbada, and M ahanadi.17 In the
fourteenth century, sandalwood was used for doors in some buildings.18
Bamboo (bans), too, was used.19 Two kinds of reed (na’i)—petal and sirkd—
were used for covering ceilings. Yet another kind of reed (kdh) was meant
for thatching (chappar). Straw (kdh ddba) too was utilized for roofing.
Ropes to fasten thatching were made of munj (a kind of grass).20 These
materials were employed by the lower-middle classes and poor people. A
few Mughal miniatures show thatched houses in a rural setting. 1 But
Bernier saw thatched houses in Delhi, too, which, in his opinion, were
often the cause of conflagrations in the town.22 In the coastal areas, palm-
leaves were used for roofing.23
Articles made of iron have been mentioned by Abul Fazl. These in
clude bands or clamps (dhan jama), large and small nails (gulmikh, dxndrin
and goga), door-knockers (halqa zanjir darwdia) and rings (halqa).24 Else
where we have discussed the use of glass for windows (tabddn) in India.23
Glass for use in buildings was an imported article, and, therefore, very
dear. The niches (tdq) and baths (hamdm) of Shah Jahan’s buildings were
fitted with glass from Haleb or Aleppo (shishahdi Halabi). This was col
oured glass: according to Fryer, very expensive and used by ‘only some
few of the highest note’. Instead of window-panes, oyster-shells and reed-
screens were generally used.
Original from
D igitized by
II
Let us examine now the basic ingredients for preparing mortar, and the
material for plastering and whitewashing. It seems the ingredients for all
these three items were generally similar; additional or especial materials
were used if strong mortar was required or refined plastering and
whitewashing was to be carried out. The importance of mortar in building
construction can be gauged from the fact that almost all the paintings
under study depict the mortar-making process.
The simplest cementing material was plain earth or clay mixed with
water (gilaba),26 but it was obviously the weakest. An improved kind was
straw (thus) added to a mixture of clay and water (kdh gil), which was used
as plaster too.27 These two preparations with clay as the base .re known
as gdra in north India,28 and were in use from earlier times. But lime mor
tar is supposed to have been introduced into India by immigrant Mus
lims. George Watt observes of the stone buildings in south India:29
The oldest constructed buildings in India, such as the Chulikyan (sic) temples of the
Deccan, have the stones so fitted into each other or are of such massive blocks that they
have remained in their positions for centuries without a cement of any kind having been
used. It seems thus fairly certain that the use o f cement in house-building was subsequent to the dates
o f the temples named (emphasis added).
Henry Cousens’ comparison between two temples in Khandesh—one
pre-Muslim and the other built much later by Queen Ahalyabai—is signi
ficant. In the older one, as he observes, no mortar was used, ‘the massive
blocks being kept in their places by their own weight, superimposed one
upon the other without any cementing material.’30 Reviewing the temple
in the south, Cousens notes: ‘The material used in these buildings is,
almost exclusively, the Dakhan trap, and the masonry has been put
together without mortar or any cementing material whatever. The blocks
have been dressed to fit one another upon level beds, their weight, and
that of the superincument masses keeping them in position.’31
As for north India, J . D. Beglar, who surveyed the monuments in and
around Delhi during 1871-2, came to the same conclusion. Beglar is
known for his bias for Hindu architecture and it is pertinent to quote him
at length:32
Hindu architecture of the pre-M uhammadan period appears to have used mortar as lit
tle as possible, except on the roof, to keep out water effectually, and in the floor as a
substratum; they used it nowhere else; in their walls my examination had failed to dis
cover anything like mortar of lime or surkhi; whether we take the walls of the Lalkot or
citadel of Anangpal, or Sultan G ari’s tomb, not a particle of mortar can be found used
Original from
D igitized by
M aterial 19
as a binding material; it is only used as waterproof cement, and I am doubtful if even

the coating of cement on the domes may not be the addition of the M uham m adans. In
the walls of the fort the core is built of rubble set in mud or reddish earth. In the tem
ples, the same, wherever the walls are thick enough to have a core, but generally it
appears that long headers were used of dressed stone, penetrating through beyond the
core, from either side, and the interstices were filled with rubble carefully laid in earth.
T he external faces of their walls (except the walls of the fort) were of carefully dressed
stones, laid without any cementing material, and secured to each other by iron clamps.
These two opinions get indirect support from the Tashrih-al Aqwdm
which narrates a legend current among the lime-burners of north India in
a . d . 1825, apparently connecting their intensive professional activity with
the period of Sultan Shahabuddin Ghor.33 It is no wonder, then, if ‘Afif

gives credit to Sultan Iltutmish for erecting all his buildings by using
rekhta.3* Rekhla means mortar or plaster; and a rekhta building was what is
now called a pucca building, made of stone or bricks joined by mortar.
Lime (ahak; china; qalaT) was of various kinds, according to the material
from which it was derived or made. It could be broadly divided into three
categories; (a) lime procured from limestone; (b) lime prepared from kank-
ar (gravel); and (c) lime obtained from fresh-water or marine shells.35
The main source for the first category was gypsum i.e., sulphate of lime
(hydrate calcium sulphate). Persian sources refer to it as gach. Sultan
Feroze Shah Tughlaq claims that he used gach when repairing the court of
Sultan’s Iltutmish’s tomb as no gach had been used in its construction ear
lier. The manner in which this term occurs in the text indicates that here
gach meant plastering.36 ‘Afif speaks of plastered wells (chdh ha bokawand
wa an gach kunanand) that were used as granaries as well as for storing
cash.37 Amir Khusrau mentions the use of gach, perhaps in the sense of
whitewashing.38 In fact, lime for gach was employed for mortar, plaster
and whitewashing. Abul Fazl uses the term gach shirin, that is, sweet
limestone or gypsum, available from its quarry near Bhera.39 An
eighteenth-century lexicon comments that this was a kind of earth found
in India that was used for building purposes; its compiler doubted that it
was available outside India.40 That gach was not known in Persia is sug
gested by the absence of any reference to it in WulfFs celebrated work on
traditional crafts in Persia. Was gach shirin, then, a special kind of gyp
sum? O r perhaps it was Abul Fazl who chose to call gypsum gach shirin?
O ther sources pnly use the term gach.
^Abul Fazl^lso speaks of qala'i sangin (patthar ka chuna).AX Qala*i is a term
bom for tin-coating and white-washing. Lime obtained from certain
limestones (carbonates of lime) was specially used for white-washing. In
Original from
D igitized by
this context we may refer to sang mahtdbi, which was available mainly in
Gujarat: the qala'i procured from it was very ‘white and soft’.42 Tavernier,
too, mentions lime from Gujarat:43 ‘All the waggons which com e to Surat
from Agra or from other places in the Empire, and return to A gra and
Jahanabad, are compelled to carry lime, which comes from Broach.*
He adds that, as soon as it is used, it ‘becomes as hard as marble.* It
seems that trade in this lime from Broach was an imperial monopoly.
Thus, Tavernier comments: ‘It is a great source of profit to th e Emperor
[Shah Jahan] who sends this lime where he pleases; but, on the other
hand, he takes no dues from the waggons.’44 Marble was y e t another
source in this category of lime. But the best lime, as Lahori asserts, came
from Patiali which was superior in brilliance and purity (jild o sofa) to
that obtained from sang marmar.45
The second category, kankar, was the most general source o f building
lime in India. Abul Fazl says that chuna was largely derived from kankar
which, as he defines it, was a type of ‘hard solid earth like a stone*.46 Un
doubtedly, as Watt observes, ‘throughout the plains of Upper In d ia the
principal source of lime is kankar.*4' As for the third category, various
kinds of sea-shells also yield lime, termed sadajx by Abul Fazl.48 Lime
from sea-shells was prepared in Bengal till the end of the nineteenth
century.49
But lime by itself is not of much value in making mortar, etc., because
it is not sufficiendy cohesive. Limestone and kankar were first burnt in kilns
(pazawah) yielding quicklime. When the latter is treated with water, it
readily absorbs it and becomes slake lime (a hydrate of lime). A num ber of
gelatinous, glutinous, resinous and non-resinous cementing agents were
then added to this mixture of lime and water depending on its use later,
that is, whether for mortar, plastering or white-washing. 1 Abul Fazl’s list
of such material consists of san (hemp), samgh (gum), sirish-i kahi (reed
glue) and surkhi (pulverized brick).52 To further strengthen the binding
quality, jaggery and other sticky preparations were also added.53 At any
rate, the basic ingredients of mortar in medieval India were lime, water
and surkhi. The first mention of pounded bricks can be traced back to the
fourteenth century: ‘Afif refers to rori (old broken bricks) which were
brought to Ferozabad for the construction of new buildings.54 He explains
that rori was used to prepare khur55 or pulverized bricks. Elsewhere, he de
scribes the practice of mixing lime (chuna pukhta) with khur.56 While it is
rather surprising that sand has not been mentioned in the Persian
sources, it appears that surkhi generally took the place of sand in India.
Watt observes, ‘In India, instead of sand, pulverized bricks were em
Original from
Digitized by
M aterial 21
ployed, a substance found more adapted than sand to the peculiarities of

Indian life.’57 Watt does not elaborate on the 'peculiarities of Indian life*.
At any rate, sand was used in India on special occasions.
Special mortar for water-proof construction was called sdruj. We learn
from one source that the outer walls (hisdr) of Shahjahanabad were first
made of stone and mud (sang o gil)> but they soon developed cracks and
breaches under the impact of heavy rain. He adds that they were rebuilt
with stones and sdruj. The impression that we get is that sdruj mortar was
more expensive, and thus employed sparingly. Sdruj was used in Persia,
too, for making cisterns and baths.59 This mortar was made of lime, sand
and wood-ash. Edward Terry noticed that the floors of Jahangir’s build
ings were ‘paved with stone or else made with lime and sand, like our
plays ter of Paris.’60
Abul Fazl describes two types of plastering: astarkdn and sandalkdn61
The first required four basic ingredients, namely, chuna, qala'i, surkhl and
sant with other articles added to it. The second required basically qala‘i
and surkhl, again mixed with other materials. Actually, sandalkdn is a spe
cial form of white-washing, done after the plastering in order to give it a
bright smoothness.62 Pelsaert was greatly struck by the ‘white plaster’
that he saw on walls which, in his opinion, was ‘far superior to anything’
in his country.63 Terry observed that the ‘walls are either painted or else
beautified with a purer white lime than that we call Spanish.’64 To quote
Pelsaert again:65
They use unslaked (?] lime, which is mixed with milk, gum, and sugar into a thin paste.
When the walls have been plastered with lime, they apply this paste, rubbing it with
well-designed trowels until it is smooth; then they polish it steadily with agates, perhaps
for a whole day, until it is dry and hard, and shines like alabaster, or can even be used
as a looking-glass.
But before plastering, walls and ceilings were first given a thick coating of
kdh gil—a mixture of straw, earth and water.66
As for white-washing (.safidkdn, sapidkdn, gachkdn), a preparation of
qalafi and water ordinarily served the purpose. For an improved effect,
sim gil (a white and greasy clay) was used. Gil surkh or geru (ochre-
coloured earth) that came from Gwalior was yet another ingredient for
white-washing material.67
In conclusion, a remark of Monserrate, the Jesuit priest who had come
to Akbar’s court from Goa, is worth noticing. Describing the Agra Fort,
he writes: ‘The stones of these buildings are so cunningly fitted that the
joints are scarcely visible, although no lime was used to fix them
together.*68 The first part of his statement is affirmed by Abul Fazl in his
Original from
D igitized by
d
own style when he says, ‘From foundations to the battlements, the fortress
was composed of hewn stones, each of which was polished like the world-
revealing m irro r. . . And they were so joined together that the end of a
hair could not find a place between them.*69 But nowhere does he empha
size that ‘no lime was used to fix them together.* In fact, another contem
porary historian mentions the use of sang o gach (stone and m ortar).70
Moreover, our two Mughal paintings relating to the construction of the
Agra Fort (Plates 4 and 6) indeed confirm the use of lime-mortar. Apart
from lime-mortar, an eighteenth-century source tells us that in the Agra
Fort, the stones were clamped together by iron rings (halqahai ohm) for
added strength.71 This information is not available in the contemporary
chronicles. The practice of securing stones together with iron clamps was
known in pre-Muslim India.77 During the reign of Sultan M ahmud
Gujarati, his slave, Safar Aqa, who held the title of Khudawand Khan,
built the Surat Fort as a defence against the depredations of the Portu
guese, using iron clamps to secure the stones.73 Molten lead was also used
to fill in the crevices between the stones. Our sources, however, do not re
fer to the use of molten lead in Mughal buildings.
Original from
D igitized by
4
Techniques and Tools
The first operation was the digging of foundation-trenches (hafar), after an

auspicious day and hour was fixed for it by astrologers.1 On this occasion
Mughal dignitaries, especially those involved with the overall supervision
of the construction project, would be present. The digging was done by
belddrs. 2 O ur literary sources do not tell us clearly about the depth of the
foundation-trenches, nor do they refer to well-like trenches. Abul Fazl,
with his linguistic flourishes, comments that excavations for the Agra Fort
were carried through the seven strata of earth (haft tabaqa zatmn).s How
ever, there are indications that trenches were dug deep, to water or rock
level.4 Next, the foundations were laid (rang rekhtan, dsds nihddan, etc).
Lahori mentions the use of stone and sdnij in the foundations of the La
hore Fort and the Taj Mahal.5 We can assume that bricks would have
taken the place of stone where the latter was not available. For a fort, a
moat (khandaq) was excavated adjacent to and around the outer walls
(fasti) f special care being taken to supply water to the m oat Describing
the founding of Hisar Feroza by Sultan Feroze Shah Tughlaq, ‘Afif men
tions the digging of a huge reservoir (hauz buzurg) which regularly sup
plied water to the m oat/ W ater for most of the Agra Fort came from
the Jam una in the Mughal period.8 ‘Alif tells us that the bottom surface of
the hisar tank as well as its two banks (bdzu), were made of mortar and
plaster (rekhta)9 Stone and plaster mortar (sang o gach) were used in the
moat of the Agra Fort.10 The reason for the use of mortar and plaster is
made clear by ‘Arif when he says that a shadurwan was put up around the
Agra Fort (gird qila *) so as to protect the fort walls from the ravages of the
moat-water. He adds that the distance between the moat and shadurwan
was twenty yards (Akbari).11 Shadurwan literally means a large curtain or
sheet (bisdt ofarsh) suspended before the gate of a palace.12 Regarding the
structure of the K a‘ba at Mecca, Ibn Khaldun refers to the ‘shadurwan
understructure running underneath the foundation walls’.13 As A. J . Wen-
sinck points out, the K a'ba ‘stands on a marble base (shadurwan) 10 inches
high, projecting about a foot,’14 apparently to protect the walls from being
damaged by floods.15 ‘Arif uses the term in the same sense. The shadurwan
Original from
D igitized by
24 B u ild in g C onstruction in M ughal India
in the Agra Fort was a masonry barrier in which, as ‘Arif says, gypsum
and lime (gach o chuna) were employed . But undoubtedly sdruj mortar,
being water-proof, would also have been used.
It is unfortunate that our paintings do not depict excavations and the
laying of foundations. However, an idea of the trenches could be formed
from one illustration in the Tashrih-al Aqwdm ( a . d . 1825) which shows a
belddr digging a foundation trench with a spade.16 For other techniques
and tools, we should turn to our paintings which offer some invaluable in
formation while literary sources are often barren in these matters.
The general term for stone-cutters is sangtarash, who can be divided into
three categories: (a) sangbar (one who works in quarries); (b) munabbtakdr
and naqqdsh (embosser and tracer), and pardchinkdr (inlayer); and (c) sdda-
kdr (plain stone-cutter).17 Embossers and inlayers do not find a place in
our paintings, but their work at least can be noticed in Plates 1 (platform
on which elephants stand) and 2. As for tracers, it is not definite whether
the artisans shown in the immediate foreground of Plates 1 and 3 (two in
Plate 1 and three in Plate 3) could be taken as tracers or just plain sangtar-
dsh chiselling a slab of stone. In fact, there is no hint of any ‘pattern* on
the stone slab. However, stone screens can be seen in Plates 1 and 3 as
evidence of the tracer’s contribution. Plate 3 depicts two artisans chisell
ing: one on the top right comer (the focus of Akbar’s attention), and the
other on the right bottom margin, just to the right of the stone-cutter.
Plates 3 (lower right margin) and 4 (lower left margin) and 6 depict red
stones being cut by plain sangtarash. Abul Fazl observes about this stone
from Fathpur Sikri that ‘clever workmen cut it so skilfully as no carpenter
could do with wood.*18 This opinion is echoed by William Finch: ‘It may
be cleft like logges, and sawne like plancks.*19 However, no saws were
used; they were cleft like logs with iron nails, which were driven into them
in a straight row at regular and close intervals. The nails appear to have
been of two kinds: thick and small, but thinning out toward both ends;
and long, with a flattened head, and the other end pointed. In this opera
tion, the stone slab was put in an inclined position. From paintings it
appears that, before nails were driven in, the slab was slightly hollowed
out at close intervals in a straight line to take in the nails. After this, the
stone-cutter sat on the slab, took a nail in one hand and hit it with a
mallet-shaped double-headed hammer held in the other. When the nails
had been somewhat secured into the stone, he stood up, stepped aside,
and used both his hands to force down the hammer upon the nails. By the
time nails had been driven in to their head-ends, the slab split asunder
along the row of nails (Plate iT, detail). Plate 6 reveals two small ‘bags’,
Original from
D igitized by
Techniques and Tools 25
apparently of cloth, with flap-ends placed near the two longitudinal extre
mities of a slab. We can see long threads attached to their flaps. These
‘bags’ might have been used for storing nails, etc. In Plate 3, two stone-
workers are seen doing a job different from ordinary stone-cutters. They
are chiselling and levelling the lateral face of the riser of a stepping by us
ing a chisel-like tool and a hammer. That the tool being used is not a nail
can be established by observing under a magnifying glass the two tools
placed on the tread below. Moreover, the position of the tool in the hand
of one worker leaves no doubt that it is a chisel (tesha) to smoothen lateral
faces.
The ‘Amal-i Salih mentions the art of burnishing and polishing stone sur
faces (mohra kasfn).20 This must have been done, as in Persia, with an abr
asive stone which, when rubbed on stone, gave the surface a bright shine.21
The literary sources contain some technical terms, namely girah bandi,
qdlibkan, band rumi> etc., but the meaning is obscure as the details are not
spelt out.22
Mughal paintings do not depict brick-kilns (pazdwah). A sketch of a tra
ditional pazdwah, however, is available in the Tashtih-al Aqwam (Plate
I).23 The ‘brick-burner’ (khist paz) is shown putting a log of wood into the
kiln through a hole. Non-baked bricks have been arranged leaving space
in between, to permit the smoke formed in the kiln to escape. The use of a
chimney for this purpose is a comparatively modem practice introduced
by Europeans. Persian sources refer to moulds (qdlib) for preparing clay
bricks by the khist tardsh: each mould required one sir of earth and half a
set of water.24
Carpenters (darudgar, najjar) and sawyers (ana kash) are portrayed in
Plates 2, 5 and 7. Only four tools can be noticed: saws (ana)y an auger/
awl (nihdm\)2b an adze (basola) and an axe (tingan, kulhari). A sketch of a
carpenter in the Tashnh-al Aqwam shows other implements also, namely,
barma (bow-drill), randa (plane), sumba/tisha (carpenter’s chisel), hammer
and ani (handsaws) (Plate II).26 The saws in Mughal paintings are labile
ones. The planks to be sawn are placed in an inclined position by a simple
device: one end of the plank rests on a beam bound by ropes to two up
right posts, while the other end is on the ground. Abul Fazl tells us that
three sawyers worked on one saw—one above (firdz) and two below
(nasheb), but he adds that sometimes only two were sufficient.27 O ur
paintings corroborate only the latter situation. The sawyer who works
above stands on the plank itself, while the one below takes two positions:
in Plate 5 (and also in Plate 2) he is virtually sitting on the ground, his
two legs half stretched out, and in Plate 7 he works standing on a very
1 Original from
D igitized by V ^ j O O g L C UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
26 B uilding Construction in M ughal India
broad wooden plank, resting on a beam-and-post structure. The manner

of sawing, too, appears to differ in the depictions. In Plate 5 the plank is
being sawn ‘thicknesswise’ along the length, but in Plate 7 this is done
‘widthwise’ through the plank. As for general carpenters, Plate 5 portrays
one chipping off a plank with a basola, and Plate 7 shows two carpenters
splitting planks with the same tool. An axe is shown on the bottom left in
Plate 7.
It is strange that Abul Fazl should ignore ironsmiths (dhangar) in the
list of building workers. Admittedly, the paintings relating to Agra and
Fathpur Sikri do not show them either. However, Plates 5 and 8 depict
ironsmiths. Plate 8 shows a large furnace with openings in the walls from
which smoke comes out, but bellows (Persian, munfakh; Hindi, dkunkm)
are not displayed. An assistant, who is perhaps working the bellows, sits
half-hidden behind the furnace wall. Another assistant is seen with a
raised axe, about to strike the hot metal-sheet placed upon a high and
wide ‘anvil’, while the smith holds the sheet between a pair of tongs. A
wide-rimmed pan is kept near the ‘anvil*, undoubtedly full of water, in
which the hot metal will be immersed. Some sheets of equal size are lying
about. Plate 5 shows a small furnace with a hole at one end for smoke, but
once again, no bellows are to be seen. The smith holds a hammer and is
in the act of striking a piece of metal kept on a small anvil, while a water-
carrier pours water into a bowl-like water-container beside him.
The absence of bellows in these paintings does not mean that bellows
were not in use. They are depicted in a manuscript of Akbar’s period.28
During the second half of the seventeenth century, Olafsson, an Icelandic
traveller, described Indian bellows thus:29
Their bellows are not like ours, being without ribs, and always full of wind. They have
no wooden end, but a long iron pipe, which is fixed and nailed on the fore part of the
bellows. They set to blowing the bellows in a kneeling posture. Now they do not blow as
we do, but seize the middle of the bellows and press and pinch them; and they draw at
once.
It is unfortunate that no other description of medieval Indian bellows is

available. We cannot say when bellows with ‘ribs’ started to be used here.
The presence of stone-cutters, carpenters and ironsmiths on the con
struction site is perhaps not without reason. Stone, wooden and iron ob
jects had to be fabricated at the site itself so that objects of the proper
dimensions and shapes could be immediately available during
construction.30 We have found only one definite instance of a prefabri
Digitized by Google Original from

T tckn q tu s and Tools 27
cated article: a cistern (hauz) prepared at Makrana, carved out of a single

block of marble (yak lakht sang marmar), was brought to Delhi to be instal
led in the Red Fort.31 However, the brickmakers themselves were not re
quired, because bricks were known to be of standard shapes and sizes.
Monserrate’s remark on ‘prefabrication* is interesting. Referring to Fath-
pur Sikri, he writes:32
In order to prevent himself [Akbar] being deafened by the noise of the tools with which
stones are shaped and beams and other timber cut, he had them cleverly fashioned else
where, in accordance with the exact plan of the building, and brought to the spot, and
there be fitted and fastened together.
But our paintings do not bear Monserrate out at all. Prefabricated

material may have been used only temporarily, when the Emperor had
started residing in his personal apartments and the construction of other
buildings was yet to be completed.
M any paintings show the preparation of mortar, and labourers con
nected with the transport and use of mortar. In the Akbamdma miniature
of Fathpur Sikri we can see a kiln from which smoke is coming out. It
does not appear to be a brick-kiln, as the few irregularly-shaped pieces of
some material strewn near about cannot be bricks. In all probability these
pieces are limestone, some of which were being burnt by the lime-burner
(china paz) sitting beside it.33 In fact, the very form of the kiln is different
from the brick-kiln illustrated in the Tashrih-al Aqwam. The latter source
has also preserved an illustration of a traditional lime-kiln34 (Plate III).
Plates 3 and 4 depict burnt lime being brought to the site in panniers
slung over the back of oxen. We have mentioned surkhi as one of the ingre
dients in mortar-making. Abul Fazl refers to surkfii kob,*5 that is, brick-
pounders. We can observe in Plate 3 bricks being brought by a labourer,
which are then pounded by a female labourer with a mallet. This tool,
called dhonsa in north India (Persian, kulukh kdb)y was ‘made of wood with
a heavy-headed handle (dasta-i giran sar) to pound gypsum and bricks*
(gach o khist).36 Another woman is sieving the lime to eliminate lumps.
Plate 4 also portrays a female worker at this job (Plate ttt, detail). A large
squarish sieve fixed between two long poles can be noticed in Plate 3: this
was meant to be handled by two or more persons.
Two paintings (Plates 5 and 7) depict water-carriers pouring out water
from their leather bags into the mortar mix. Abul Fazl speaks of ab hash,
who supplied water to the mortar-makers.37 Our paintings show the latter
with legs partly dipped in the wet mortar mix (Plate iv, detail), spading
out the mortar into cane baskets and pans held by labourers. These pans
Original from
D igitized by l ^ O O g K UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
28 B u ild in g C onstruction in M u g h a l In d ia
and baskets full of mortar were carried on the labourers* heads to

stonemasons and brick-layers. These half-naked unskilled labourers
placed some cushioning, with a cavity in the middle, over the ubiquitous
turban, on top of which the basket and pan were put. These 'cushions*,
called indli in U.P., and in Bihar, bitha, are made of cloth or soft cane and
straw. On the other hand, professional loaders (hammdl, kahdr)38 did not
carry mortar on their heads. Plates 5, 6 and 8 depict hammdls, fully
clothed, carrying large (cane?) baskets, full of mortar. The basket is fas
tened by three or four ropes to a bamboo-beam, which rests upon the
shoulders of two hammdls, while the basket dangles between them (Plate v,
detail). Plates 4, 5 and 6 reveal women carrying mortar on their heads. It
should be noted that neither hand- nor wheel-barrows have been de
picted in our paintings. The Islamic culture-area knew the use of hand-
barrows for carrying light material at the construction site (Plate IV ).39
Wheel-barrows, an important labour-saving device, had been used in
China for many centuries, and came to be used in Europe by the end of
the fourteenth century,40 but they were unknown in India.
The next operation was the job of stonemasons and bricklayers. O ur
sources use a term, raj, a corruption of the Arabic rdz,41 which means a
builder or architect. This was a general term like me'mar or banjia’, bu t in
India it is specially used for bricklayers and stonemasons. The term raj
occurs for the first time in ‘Afifs Tdnkh-i Feroze Shafts,*2 and again in the
Zakhirat-ul Khwantn.43 Only three paintings (Plates 5, 7 and 8) show the
use of bricks. In Plate 7, we see a woman putting bricks into a basket, and
a male labourer supplying bricks to a raj. In Plate 8, bricks are being car
ried in large pans on the head of a labourer. In Plate 5, a brick is shown
being broken with a basoli by the bricklayer to fit it properly. The basoli is
a mason’s tool, smaller than the carpenter’s basola, and fixed a little dif
ferently to the handle. Courses (rada, rasta) of bricks have been laid out in
Plates 5 and 8 on the principle of headers-and-stretchers.
Stonemasons were supplied with big heavy stone slabs, and small light
ones, as well as sang ghulula (Plates 4 and 6). Plate 3 (upper left corner),
shows a mason chiselling a small block of stone.
The trowel (kirru),44 used for spreading mortar, is depicted clearly in
Plates vi (detail) and 7. A labourer is shown pouring mortar from a basket
over a completed course of stones to prepare for another course. T he raj
holds a trowel in his right hand, and a small rectangular wooden object in
his left, with which he smooths and levels the mortar. A bucket-like vessel
can be seen nearby, towards which the mason reaches out with his trowel.
Perhaps the vessel contains water or a pasty material to wet the trowel
with from time to time. Trowels have also been shown in Plate 2.
Original from
Digit »Google UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Ttcknujuis and Tools 29
Plastering (astarkdn) is depicted in Plate 5 (centre, right). The plasterer

uses a trowel, half of which is visible. A pan containing the plastering
material, a small lota for water and a small bowl are laid beside the work
er. The same painting depicts another worker rubbing a plastered wall
with some object which reminds us of Pelsaert’s observation about plaster
being rubbed with an agate to produce a mirror-like brilliance. We look in
vain in our paintings for the plumb-line (saqul) used to check the straight
ness of walls. Chronicles and foreign travellers’ accounts, too, are silent on
this matter. Lexicons are of some help, but do not provide any details.45
The technique of erecting pillars is noteworthy. We can observe in
Plate 5 the capitals of three pillars on the ground floor. Each pillar is en
closed within a narrow casing of masonry almost up to the capital. The
space between the pillar and its enclosure is shown being filled with mor
tar and rubble. This practice recalls what A.C.L. Carileyle reported in
1871-2 about Shah Jah an ’s Moti Masjid at Agra:46
The exterior of the Masjid is built of, or rather faced, with slabs of red sandstone, but
according to the almost invariable, and I think unfortunate, custom in Indo-
M uham m adan architecture, the centre or core of the walls is filled with rubble brick
work (or roras) and mortar, so there is a mere thin outer casing of stone-work, whether it
be of red sandstone or of marble.
A similar observation was made by Cunningham about the outer walls

of the Agra Fort built by Akbar. He reports that it was ‘rubble wall faced
with red sandstone slabs bound together with bad powdery mortar’, while
the inner walls built prior to Akbar were ‘a compact mass of well-built
walls of rough stones and hard tenacious mortar’.47 However, this tech
nique might have been used for stone walls; our paintings do not indicate
this practice with brick walls. The purpose of encasing pillars, as in Plate
5, with bricks and mortar, was it seems to reinforce them to take the
weight of the upper storey, which is shown in the process of being built.
How was building material hauled up and supplied to the builder? As
long as the wall did not rise above a man’s height, material could be sup
plied without any special device. For example, in Plate 8 a labourer hands
out bricks to the raj who is within his reach (also see Plate 2). But where
walls rose higher, we find two kinds of step-ladders being used (Plates 2,
5, 7 and 8). For yet greater heights, specially when carrying blocks of
stone or heavy baskets of mortar, timber or bamboo ramps (raptaJ48 were
prepared (Plates 3, 4 and 6). These ramps were broad enough to
accommodate ‘labour traffic’ both ways. The angle of incline shown in
Plate 3 is gradual, but in Plate 6 it seems to be rather abrupt—roughly 70
Original from
D igitized by
30 B u ild in g C onstruction in M ughal In d ia
degrees. In Plate 4 also the slope seems very steep—we cannot be sure
whether or not to ascribe this to an artistic aberration.
We have described above how a light load of mortar was carried by
labourers on their heads. The ramp in Plate 3 is shown being used mainly
by such labourers. However, Plate 4 depicts the carriage of a long, heavy
slab of stone up the ramp. The device employed here is interesting. It is
secured at each end by ropes fastened to a thick bamboo pole, one at each
end. The ends of each pole rest on the shoulders of two hammdls, who hold
long staffs in their hands to support themselves as they proceed up the
ramp. Thus, four hammdls bear one slab between them (Plate wt, detail).
We possess positive evidence of only two devices, the ladder and the
ramp, for transporting heavy loads. R. Nath is certain that pulleys were
employed for these tasks, but he does not substantiate his opinion.49 Pul
leys were used in medieval India to draw water (and for hanging, too).50
When Sultan Feroze Shah Tughlaq brought two inscribed Ashokan pil
lars to Delhi, they were hauled and loaded on to boats and carts with the
help of a complex arrangement of a series of pulleys.51 But neither our
paintings nor contemporary literary sources tell us about the use of pul
leys in building construction. Europeans employed pulleys worked by
windlasses as well as treadmills in construction, and European paintings
often depict these devices along with ladders; the ramp was seldom used (see
Plate V).52 It is not unreasonable to suggest that the ramp was an
alternative technique; moreover, it permitted greater ‘labour traffic* of di
verse sorts simultaneously. It may be pointed out here that Persian
sources often use a general term—jarr saqtl,53 which denotes any device or
technique for dragging, hoisting or hauling heavy objects. But precisely
what these devices were is never disclosed, especially in the context of
building construction.
A scaffold became necessary as soon as the walls of a building had risen
to an uncomfortable height, say, about five feet, because it was then diffi
cult to continue with the laying of further courses (stone or brick).
Another advantage of scaffolding is that it provides the mason with a
comparatively stable ‘seat’ to perform his job. It is surprising that no
clear evidence of the scaffold (Hindi, par, Persian, chob bast, chob dandi)54 is
available in Mughal paintings, although we know that scaffolding was
used not only in India but also in the Islamic culture-area (Plate IV).55 In
Europe, at least three kinds of scaffolding were used.56 O ur paintings de
pict the mason sitting on the wall itself, sometimes quite precariously
(Plates 4, 5, and 8). Nevertheless, in two instances, we notice planks rest
ing on timber posts tied together by rope, upon which the worker sits with
ease (Plates 5 and 7). Again, three planks, one above the other, and fas-
D igitized by L j O O g L c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
cuui Tools 31
tcned to two bamboo posts in an arched gateway, can be observed in

Plate 1; here planks were added to work at the required heights in succes
sion (Appendix III).
There is a rare piece of evidence in Plate 4 concerning the technique
used to raise a heavy load slightly off the ground, or of overturning it.
This is known as the ‘class one Lever Principle’, when the fulcrum lies be
tween the load and the effort. Three labourers are shown applying force at
one end of a thick pole; a part of the other end rests across a piece of stone
that serves as a fulcrum, while the extreme part of the same end lies be
neath a heavy stone slab. A labourer can be seen standing near the slab
holding the ropes. The idea is to lift the stone a little in order to secure the
two ends with rope one after another so that it can be hauled along the
ramp (Plate riti, detail).
Literary sources do not offer details of the techniques adopted by car
vers, embossers, inlayers and sculptors. There is nothing on the subject in
the paintings either, though we do notice embossed and inlaid work
(Plates 1, 2, and 5). Sculptors’ work is represented in Plate 1 (Fathpur
Sikri) and Plate 2 (see Appendix II).
Painters do not appear in our miniatures, except in one instance where
an artist is portrayed standing before the inner wall of a house, with a
wall painting of a human figure displayed in the composition (Plate 9).57
We also notice his palette on the floor near him. In Plate 4 (Fathpur Sikri),
artists have left traces of their skill in the two spandrels of an arch: the
compositions are similar—an angel in yellow robes with a deer beside
him. In his monumental work on Fathpur Sikri, E. W. Smith had repro
duced many paintings from the walls of different buildings; but as this
painting is not reproduced, it must obviously have been destroyed by his
time. At any rate, it is difficult to determine from the miniature which
method of architectural painting was employed in this case. Many refer
ences to wall paintings are, however, available in Persian and European
literary sources. Thomas Herbert, who visited the Lahore Fort a year be
fore Jahangir’s death, describes in detail paintings of court scenes with
portraits of Jahangir, his ancestors, his sons and numerous Mughal no
bles, and also a depiction of the Crucifixion and of the Virgin Mary.58
Herbert’s observations relating to Christian themes have been reinforced
by a scholar who visited Lahore Fort in 1980, and who discovered frescoes
on the vault of the Kala Buij, which had been uncovered recently from
under the whitewash done by the British.59 Lahori speaks of paintings on
the walls of Shah Jah an ’s khwdbgdh (bedroom) in the Lahore Fort.60 One
source refers to ‘Abdussamad, the celebrated court painter, who once ex
Original from
Digitized by
ecuted decorative designs (naqsh o nigdr) on the inner walls of the khUwat
khdna (private apartments) of Khan A‘zam ‘Aziz Koka, a Mughal grandee
of the period of Akbar and Jahangir.61
It is unfortunate that our paintings do not show arabesques engraved
on stone, although literary sources refer to kitdba (calligraphy), especially
Q ura’nic verses carved on stone.62
Concerning the water supply, Abul Fazl mentions chdh kan (well-diggers)
and ghola khur (divers who cleaned wells) in the list of workers connected
with house construction.63 Plate 1, relating to the construction of the
Fathpur Sikri complex, reveals a sdqiyd (Persian wheel).64 T hat the sdqiyd,
with its rope-chain fitted with water-pots, and gear mechanism operated
by bullocks, was a widely-employed device for drawing water for use in
palaces and large houses, is testified by the many paintings depicting it
within buildings, or sometimes, just adjacent to their masonry en
closures.65 At least one painting shows a charas or pulley-lift worked by a
pair of bullocks along an inclined path.66 Rizvi and Flynn make two state
ments in their work on Fathpur Sikri about the mechanism for lifting wa
ter from deep wells (baolis).67 For one particular baoti, they mention a
‘treadmill’ turned by men ‘which raised water’; and for the other, they
mention the use of a ‘windlass’. Both statements are incorrect: there is no
evidence so far of a treadmill used to draw water from wells in Mughal
India. As for the windlass, they have probably confused it with pulleys.
The windlass-pulley was used in Europe to draw water from wells, but its
use in India cannot be established. The poor appear to have used the
pulley-lift operated by human power as it was less expensive than either
the charas or sdqiyd ** Even tanks were dug for water supply to houses.69
No study of Mughal buildings of the royalty or the elite is complete
without a reference to gardens. The art of gardening in its fullest sense,
both in terms of structure and horticulture, developed in India under the
Mughals, starting with Babur. Mughal gardens retained the elements of
Central Asian and Persian gardens.70 Numerous Mughal paintings ex
hibit gardens either as independent units71 or as an integrated part of an
architectural complex.72 However, here we are concerned with the latter
category, that is, the ‘garden-palace’. It has been correctly observed that
Eastern gardens and their buildings are ‘closely and significantly
interwoven’.73 This remark can be fully appreciated in the context of Ber
nier’s view of the interrelationship between climate and architecture
(Chapter 1 above). Bernier makes the apt comment that ‘It is sufficient if
they [houses] have that magnificence which is suited to the climate.’74
Original from
D igitized by
Techniques and Tools 33
Villiers Stuart approvingly adds that no 'magnificence* could be more

charmingly 'suited to the climate* than that of an Indian garden-palace.75
We have already dted Bernier’s comment that ‘a good house has its court
yards, gardens, trees, basins of water, small jets d’eau.' He further says:
‘They consider that a house to be greatly admired ought to be situated in
the middle of a large flower-garden.*76 Thus, among the Mughal upper
classes, the ‘planning and planting [of] gardens in direct harmonious re
lation to the house’77 was desirable from the viewpoint of physical con
venience as well as aesthetics.
T hat ‘garden-design’ was an integral part of Mughal building con
struction cannot be denied. O ur paintings bear ample testimony to it, and
it is reinforced both by the existing remains and literary sources. Gardens
designed as independent units, or as those which formed part of a house,
were similar as far as basic details are concerned. A few Mughal paint
ings, for example, show a sdqxyd lifting water from wells; a big cistern
(hauz) in which water collects and flows out in turn through an opening to
feed channels cutting each other at right angles; fountains set up in the
middle of small masonry tanks with jets or plumes of water emerging from
them; and also parterres or flower-beds, rectangular or squarish in
form. But the chddar or water-chute is absent; it was probably a feature
only o f ‘independent’ gardens.78
O ur study reveals both the richness and limitations of the sources chosen.
Mughal paintings frequently have surprises in store for us, for evidence on
the technique of stone-cutting, devices for haulage and lifting of or up
turning heavy objects, the process of mortar-making, and tools, etc., is rare in
literary sources; these are rich in information on organization, personnel,
workmen, etc., which often finds confirmation in paintings. Lexicons and
glossaries form a special category in the general context of the history of
technology. O ur study also compels us to recognize the inadequacies of
archaeology with regard to several new queries that are being posed to
day. A reasonably complete picture may emerge when the results of field
surveys of the still lingering traditional techniques related to building
construction are combined with what archaeology, literature and paint
ings offer.
Original from
D igitized by
5
Epilogue
Certain questions have not so far been raised, especially those pertaining
to the organizational aspects of building construction. One such question
relates to the position of architect. Who was an architect in M ughal
India? Did he belong to a professional group distinct from other builders?
If so, how did this happen and was there any institutionalized process
through which he graduated to become one? What was his social status?
True, paintings cannot be expected to yield answers to such queries an d ,
that too, on their own; but literary sources should help. Scholars of Euro
pean architecture have studied these aspects in depth because of the
abundant contemporary literary evidence available to them, but o u r
sources cannot match theirs’ in this respect either in quantity or quality.
We may, however, venture to make a modest attempt to scrutinize w hat
ever information we have collected so far. Before we do so, it will be in
structive and fruitful to acquaint ourselves with the European experience
as well as the situation in medieval Islam outside India.
It has been argued that the architect’s profession in Europe during the
Middle Ages evolved into a separate entity when building craftmanship
developed separately into architectural and constructional functions; in other
words, the architect planned the buildings as opposed to the man who ex
ecuted the plans. This process seems to have gathered momentum during the
Renaissance, culminating in the present, when planning and designing’
architects have almost severed ties with actual construction.1 But it
appears that such professional differentiation existed, in some form or
scale, even in ancient times. Consider Plato’s observation: ‘T he
architect . . . is not himself a workman, but the ruler of workmen.’2 Again,
Vitruvius, the Roman architect and engineer (first century b .c .), thought
of architects in terms of their versatility:3
Architects who have aimed at acquiring manual skill without scholarship have never been
able to reach a position of authority to correspond to their pains, while those who relied
only upon theories and scholarship were obviously hunting the shadow, not the
substance. But those who have a thorough knowledge of both, like men armed a t all
points, have the sooner attained their object and carried authority with them.
Original from
D igitized by
Epilogue 35
Vitruvius sets out the following curriculum for students of architecture:4

Let him be educated, skilful with the pencil, instructed in geometry, know much history,
have followed the philosophers with attention, understand music, have some knowledge
of medicine, know the opinion of the jurists, and be acquainted with astronomy and the
theory of the heavens.
Obviously, then, Vitruvius was not thinking of ‘builders or masons, but
men of high social standing’,5 with the academic equipment normally non
existent among ordinary building workers. This trend of professional
polarization—albeit incomplete before modem times—remained frequent
ly concealed thanks to contemporary mores which pushed the designer
and creator of a building into anonymity while lauding the patron.
Humanism and the Renaissance, however, gradually demolished the old
values which tended to preserve the apparent anonymity of artists and
architects. Thus, the architect began to establish his individuality in the
wake of fundamental social changes at a certain period.6
How did a person connected with building construction rise to be a
‘ruler of workmen’? One view is that potential architects were to be found
among the building craftsmen themselves—the traditional route was from
apprentice to journeyman, to mason, to master-mason, to architect.7
Master-masons of exceptional skill had already surfaced as mason-
architects when the ‘unity of abstract and concrete architectural work’
prevailed intact, and yet, as early as the twelfth century a . d . , the master-
mason had begun to confine himself to directing workmen at the site
‘without himself working with his hands as one would expect—and has
reason to expect—from a master-mason of that time.*8 The picture that
emerges can be summarized thus: the master-mason grows into a mason-
architect—the latter getting the work done by others, while he concerns
himself solely with the planning and designing, and supervising the actual
construction of the building. The mason-architect then generally with
draws from the construction site, ultimately evolving into an architect
working as the master-mind. The mason rose to be an architect on
account of many factors, the most important being literacy and
education—advantages not normally available to every mason. Patronage
was yet another important element in this process of professional im
provement. And once this change occurred in the career of a craftsman, in
all likelihood a family of architects was destined to emerge and to be rec
ognized as such.9 At this stage, the architect threw his net wider, that is,
he acted not only as the architect of a building, but also as an ‘adminis
trative official of the building fabric, as building contractor, and finally, as
technological supervisor of construction.*10
Original from
D igitized by
Now, let us turn to the situation in medieval Islamic societies outside

India. We find three terms in use, viz., muhandis, me'mdr and banna, almost
throughout the Islamic culture-area.11 These terms were generally consi
dered to be synonymous. Wulff says that there is ‘no clear distinction in
traditional Persian crafts between builders, masons and bricklayer
(me‘mar, banna).'12 Yet the muhandis stood apart from the latter two
categories.13 Only when terms like ustdd, mu ‘allim and sahib were used for a
mason would his rank exceed that of an ordinary workman:14 The usidd
me'mdr, then, could be equated with the European master-builder, who
evolved in the course of time into an architect (for which there is no Ara
bic or Persian word). Did literacy help him secure the latter station?
Ideally, Mayer thinks, an essential and clear difference would be ‘a good
general education and a sound theoretical knowledge of their work’. But
Mayer has reservations about the role of literacy in respect of the Islamic
experience. Since, in his opinion, ‘these architects had no theoretical
training’, he notes how ‘small the real difference between an architect and
a foreman was—if such a difference ever really existed.’15 We cannot agree
with Mayer that the difference between a literate and non-literate mason
was ‘small*. The European experience as well as the Indian confirm the
pivotal role of a ‘general education’ and ‘sound theoretical knowledge’ in
professional differentiation. The absence of institutions for imparting
theoretical knowledge does not forbid its oral transmission—a feature
shared in common by every society in earlier times. In fact, Mayer himself
concedes implicitly that the Muslim architect was a ‘gentleman’ craftsman,
and, like his counterpart in Europe, ‘occasionally a master of several
crafts’,16 which was not to be expected from a workman or even
master-mason. And there was no lack of patrons in Islamic societies for
whom the best of the building craftsmen would erect massive and fabulous
buildings to outshine those of other patrons.
In Mughal India, we find the same three terms—muhandis, me'mdr and
banna—being used but they are distinguished from those used for artisans
and workmen.17 It is true that me(mdr and banna, as general terms for buil
ders, were interchangeably used at times in Mughal India, but we also
notice that during the same period the me'mdr had surged ahead by
acquiring a separate identity from the banna: the latter’s work remained
confined to brick-and-stone laying. The banna was nevertheless not an
ordinary bricklayer: he was a master-mason. At least one source points to
his being next in importance only to the muhandis and me'mdr. At any
rate, the me'mdr begins to appear as a builder of higher rank, far above the
banna and other workmen. It is not surprising, then, that the me'mdr and

Epilogue 37
his wages are not mentioned in the A ’in although a long list of construc
tion workers and their wages is given.20 That the me< mdr was associated
with the Mughal administration under Akbar during the second half of
the sixteenth century is clearly established, as shown in Chapter 1, by the
‘model’ Jarman preserved in one pre-A’ut source which mentions the
appointment of the me'mar (mansab me'mdn) to different regions (weldyat) of
the Empire. These regional me'mars were entrusted with the construction
of royal buildings (‘imdral khdssa) in their respective jurisdiction. They
must undoubtedly have been highly skilled builders to earn the epithet
ustad (ustad faldn m /W r).21 This can be compared to the term sar dmad-i
me'mdran (chief/head me'mar) mentioned in a source of Shah Jah an ’s
period with reference to ustdd Ahmad—the head me‘mdr of the Red Fort.22
One function of the ustdd me‘mar was to prepare the tarah or plan of the
proposed building, and it is not surprising that he was also called
muhandis.23 The muhandis was one who possessed knowledge of mathema
tics and geometry; in the context of building construction the latter
actually denoted geometrical proportions. In practice, the muhandis
amounted to a technical supervisor or engineer. What is remarkable,
however, is the development of a separate functional entity of the
architect on the one hand, and the muhandis on the other, during the
seventeenth century. We have mentioned in Chapter 1 the construction of
the khwdbgdh of Shah Jahan in the Lahore Fort, for which the tarah was
prepared by the metmdr and handed over, after royal approval, to the
muhandis to carry out the work accordingly. Thus, specialization had de
veloped to the extent that the me(mdr would set out the tarah, and the
muhandis provide the technical supervision.
But this specialization was only a trendy and not yet fully institutional
ized. For example, an illustration in the Bdbumdma (Plate i, detail), depicts
a person supervising the laying-out of a garden with a tarah held before him.
This person is certainly the ustdd me'mdr. It could perhaps be argued that,
since this evidence dates to Akbar’s reign, it is not surprising that the
chief me‘mar was intimately associated with almost all aspects of building
construction. But even later, under Shah Jahan, ustdd Ahmad me‘mdr is re
ported to have supervised the digging of the foundations of the Red Fort
in accordance with the tarah prepared by himself. We are not told whether
Ahmad supervised the construction of the entire complex of the Fort, but
the terms muhandis and me(mdr have invariably been used in our sources of
that period as two distinct professionals. The existence of this distinction
is strengthened by the fact that Lutfullah, the son of ustdd Ahmad m /W r,
was known as muhandis and not, like his father, me‘mdr.2A It is possible
Original from
D igitized by
that, after preparing the tarah, the chief me'mar supervised only the excava
tion of the foundations, the rest being taken up by the muhandis as the
technical supervisor. Nonetheless, the picture is not quite so simple, for
not all our sources use these terms with the same exactitude. For instance,
if a source of Aurangzeb’s reign is to be taken literally, toroA-makers were
different from the me'mar—which suggests further specialization.25 Again,
Aurangzeb once asked one of his sons to have the mud, etc., removed
from a large tank at Aurangabad by two me'mars (Mahram Khan and
Khidmatgar Khan) who were state employees.26 At any rate, Akbar’s re
gional ustdd me'mar appears to have gradually yielded an important part of
his functions—construction supervision—to the muhandis during the seven
teenth century, while retaining the task of taroA-making down to Aurang
zeb’s reign.
We may now raise the question as to how someone connected with
building construction was elevated to the status of an architect. As in
Europe, in India, too, literacy and patronage emerge as the twin factors
favouring this significant change. The me'mar, as an ordinary mason,
climbs in rank to become an ustdd me'mar or master-mason, and very soon
he appears as an ‘architect’, specializing in toroA-making. The history o f
one family of ‘architects’ of Lahore—that of ustdd Ahmad—clearly estab
lishes our hypothesis that learning and education on the one hand, and
royal patronage on the other, generated a line of architects and engineers
in the family. In one of his works, Lutfullah muhandis, the son of Ahmad,
sheds some light on his family, beginning with his father’s career. It is
striking that Lutfullah does not say anything significant about his ances
tors. The probable reason for this is that they were either ordinary
masons or not very literate master-masons. True, ustdd Ahmad has not left
any book written by himself, but his knowledge and literacy must have
been wide enough for him to be hailed as a hindasa parddz (mathematician
and geometrician), and to be honoured with the title nddir-al 'asr (‘The
Wonder of the Age’).27 We have already mentioned that he was associ
ated with the construction of the Red Fort and Taj Mahal, which con
firms royal patronage. In fact, he may be considered to have been the
King’s architect. His son, Lutfullah muhandis, is credited with having writ
ten a number of books, of which one is on astronomy and three on
mathematics— the rest consist of an anthology of his verses, a work on
ethics, a compendium of poets, etc. His son, Imamuddin reydzi (mathe
matician), wrote some books on mathematics and astronomy. Lutfullah’s
second son, Khairullah muhandis, besides being a writer, is reputed to have
supervised construction of the observatories at Delhi, Jaipur, Varanasi
Original from
D igitized by
EpUogui 39
and Ujjain during the reign of the Mughal Emperor, Muhammad Shah
(1719-39), on the orders of Raja Jai Singh II. He also gave instruction in
mathematics.28 Khairullah’s son, Muhammad Ali reydzi> was a mathe
matician, too. Thus, as in Europe, it is fair to conclude that literacy,
helped to elevate a formerly non-literate mason into a master-mason, and
then catapulted him to a yet higher category of builders, distinct from the
bannd and other workmen. It is in this perspective that appellations like
astarldb shinds, aqtidas nazar and hindasa parddz become meaningful. One
fascinating aspect is that the wide spectrum of knowledge expected in
architects by Vitruvius is true of medieval India, also. A Sanskrit work of
the eleventh century a . d . demanded almost the same range of learning
from the sthdpad (architect):
T he stMapati should be fit to direct (sthafxuia) the construction and should be well-versed
in all sastras, the traditional sciences . . . . a Tantrik and well-bom; he should know
mathematics and the Puranas, the ancient compendia of myths, etc., painting, and all
the countries . . . and having crossed the ocean of the science of Vastu.29
In Mughal India, the family of ustdd Ahmad largely appears to fulfil such
expectations by displaying their interest in many disciplines. And, indeed,
it was literacy of a higher order that created a cleavage between manual
and ‘intellectual* work, thereby shattering the traditional unity of
architectural and constructional functions. One category planned and the
other executed: the master-mason (me'mdr and muhandis) had now turned
into a ‘ruler of workmen*.
But to what extent could literacy have played its part ‘in the acquisition
of the technical knowledge necessary for designing and constructing a
building*? The European experience in the Middle Ages was not much
different from that of Mughal India. ‘Whatever knowledge he [the
master-mason] possessed in the art of building*, observes Shelby, ‘he had
learned either directly from his master, or from observing the results of
the efforts of past masters, or from the practical experiences of his own
successes and failures.’30 To this we may add that, in a family of
architects like ustdd Ahmad’s, the sons learned from their fathers, and
younger brothers received trade secrets from the older.31 Thus, knowledge
of the art of building was ‘transmitted from one generation to the next,
not through books’, but orally; as in Europe, no manuals on design and
building techniques have survived from Mughal India, for they were not
written at all. It is indeed surprising that no tarah of royal or any other
buildings have come down to us: even the family of ustdd Ahmad has not
left any collection of the tarah prepared by its members. How, then, did li
Original from
Digitized by
40 B udding Construction in M ughal India
teracy place them apart from ordinary workmen? To answer this ques
tion, we would need to examine the social mores and values of Mughal
India in depth. It is not proposed to do so here, but we should note never-
-theless that in the culture of the Mughals, anyone reputed in penmanship
(ahl-i qalam) was not only held in general esteem, but also given patronage
by the elite. Educated master-masons, known for their innovative skill
and sophistication, were thus keenly sought after by the elite who consi
dered patronage of the best a matter of prestige, power and glory.
The system of Mughal patronage must have enhanced the social status
of the ustdd me*mdr and muhandis, but surprisingly no evidence is at hand of
any architect being awarded a mansab,32 which had ‘become a mark of so
cial prestige,’33 in fact, no Mughal architect was a high court official. The
case was similar to that in other Islamic societies: although the ‘vast
majority of all architects, and quite clearly all the important ones in all
periods and in all regions of Muslim civilization, were part of the retinue
of the patrons of their time,’ not one was given a rank in the state’s higher
bureaucracy.34 We do not even know anything about the salaries or in
come of Mughal architects. Mayer notes that ‘of all the tales of exagger
atedly munificent remuneration, so often spun in Islamic lands especially
in connection with poets, not a single one referred to an architect.’35 We
may add that in Mughal India even painters fared better than architects.
As for a tide, only ustdd Ahmad was lucky enough to receive one.
The reason for this relative neglect of architects should be sought in the
value-system of Mughal society. The fact that architects rose from the
ranks of non-literate manual artisans proved a major handicap, for their
social mobility was restricted by their supposedly low origins. Neverthe
less, as far as professional rank is concerned, the ustdd meimdr had definitely
risen higher than a workman. At least in one respect, the Mughal
architect enjoyed an advantage over his counterpart in the Islamic world
outside India—he was allowed greater latitude in displaying his name
and signature boldly.36 Mayer observes: ‘By and large, Islamic architects,
such as Sinan, Dawud Agha [etc.] do not appear in any of the mosques
and madrasas, etc. built by them in Istanbul while officials’ names
abound.' And if they ever signed their names, they did so in an ‘inconspi
cuous comer after the d a te . 7 Mughal architects were spared this sort of
anonymity.
Let us now turn to the imr timdrat. Literary sources of Akbar’s period
are silent about this office. There is only one epigraphic instance, of
1604— about a year before Akbar’s death—o f the use of the term.38 If all
the important literary sources of Akbar’s reign are accepted as having

Epilogue 41
been completed by 1600, the appointment of mir ‘imdrat must be taken as

a very late development in the series of administrative experiments under
Akbar. From now onwards, the regional ustdd me'mdr of Akbar gives place
to the tmr ‘imdral. The question is: was the mir ‘imdrat drawn from the
ranks of the builders? If we could show that the holder of this office was
picked from literate master-masons it would add an interesting dimension
to our study. Unfortunately there is scarcely any evidence to guide us on
this point. In other Islamic lands, too, the superintendent of buildings
was rarely a professional architect.39 It was a different matter if the rmr
‘imdrat had acquired some of the tricks of the trade through long associa
tion with builders. True, the holder of this post was normally expected to
possess some knowledge of building construction, not in the technical
sense, but purely from the viewpoint of an administrator. It was useful for
him to know the intricacies of accountancy, but he could also employ a
trained accountant. The Heddyat-ul Qawd‘id, as discussed in Chapter 1,
makes it clear that the trur ‘imdrat was a mere administrator. The origins
of the holders of this post, as also the me‘mdr, muhandis, etc., are not trace
able. Thus, the status of the chief regional architects as administrative
officers under Akbar vanished for ever in the subsequent period. It is diffi
cult even to make a guess at the reasons for this change in the fortunes of
master-masons.
There are other questions concerning Mughal architects which cannot
be answered in the present state of our knowledge. We know of the
mason-architect and engineer-architect, but was there, as in Europe, a
contractor-architect too? Can it be proved that ustad Ahmad was the
‘king of architects* on a permanent basis? He could have been a
contractor-architect, an independent professional selling his technical
know-how to rich patrons. Evidence connecting him with the Mughal
state comes only from his son, Lutfullah: one piece of evidence is from an
inscription by him on a building at Mandu, which suffixes the term ‘Shah
Jahani’ to his father’s name (ustad Ahmad me‘mdr Shah Jahani);40 the
other comes from his book of verse which tells us that his father was the
‘King’s architect’.41 But what about other members of his family, includ
ing himself, whose names and signatures appear on royal buildings with
out indicating their official affiliation to the Mughal sovereigns? Lutfullah
himself does not seem to have been in the good books of Aurangzeb, for
he had been associated with Dara Shukoh. It is not clear whether the
family was free to practise as private architects for others. Lutfullah’s in
scription mentions the names of two other master-builders—ustad Scwa
Ram and ustad Hamid. The latter is reported to have been associated with
Original from
D igitized by
ustdd Ahmad in the construction of the Red Fort. Although Sulaiman

Nadvi states that Hamid was ustdd Ahmad’s father’s younger brother,43
this assertion is not confirmed by Lutfullah. Nor is there any proof that
the two architects—Sewa Ram and Hamid—were regular employees of the
state. Could we, then, infer that besides the ‘King’s architects’ there was a
possibility of private or independent architects practising their profes
sions, during the Mughal period as in Europe, and the Islamic countries
as well?44
Before concluding, let us briefly comment on toroA-making. We have
already noted that the plan or tarah of a building was ‘undimensional’,
notwithstanding the fact that no Mughal tarah is available to us today.
The available Islamic tarahs outside India tell the same story. In Europe,
too, building plans were neither scaled nor given dimensions to show
elevations, sections and jointings of the stones in detail, as in modem
blueprints of buildings. Shelby concludes: ‘It appears . . . that these par
ticular drawings were executed in order to show to the patron the inten
tions of the architects, rather than to provide working drawings for
masons. O r again, one suspects, the master masons sometimes drew plans
and elevations in order to clarify in their own minds the design which
they intended to execute. But because these drawings lack dimensions
and jointings of the stones, they could not be used as “working drawings”
or “ blueprints” in the modem term.’45 Although a painting in the Bdbur-
ndma (Plate i, detail) displays a tarah in the hands of the architect, we
should not forget that this tarah was connected with the laying-out of beds
in a garden, which did not require jointings, elevations and dimensions.
The draughtsmanship of a tarah was concerned with the ‘appearance’ of the
proposed building: more than that, tarahs were prepared and used to
understand the geometrical proportions of the various parts of the building.
Concerning the latter, an epithet like aqtidas naz.ar (aqtidas for Euclid)
should not mislead us into thinking that medieval architects—the me <mar or
muhandis—‘used a Euclidean-type of reasoning’ to solve problems related to
the ‘construction and manipulation of the geometrical forms’ in building.
This kind of geometry in the European context has been labelled
‘constructive geometry’; it has scarcely any affinity with ‘either the classical
geometry of Euclid or Archimedes*. Shelby says, ‘It becomes evident that
the “art of geometry” for medieval masons meant the ability to perceive
design and building problems in terms of a few basic geometrical figures
which could be manipulated through a series of carefully prescribed steps
to produce the points, lines, and curves needed for the solution of the
problems.’46

Epilogue 43
T o sum up: medieval building craftsmen produced ‘potential architects*

from amidst their ranks: none from the non-building social groups ever
entered the profession. Literacy and patronage, coupled with innovative
skill, raised ordinary master-masons to the rank of an architect: profes
sional polarization was accelerated when the elite’s patronage enlarged
the architect’s income to the point conducive to socio-economic dif
ferentiation. But the status of the architect could not rise further in the social
hierarchy thanks to the values and mores prevalent in Mughal society.
Original from
D igitized by
Original from
Appendices

Original from
A P P E N D IX I
Thevenot on the Houses o f Surat*
T he Houses of this Town on which the Inhabitants have been willing to lay out Money,
are flat as in Persia, and pretty well built; but they cost dear, because there is no Stone in
the Countrey; seeing they are forc’d to make use of Brick and Lime, a great deal of Tim ber
is employ’d, which must be brought from Daman by Sea, the Wood of the Countrey which
is brought a great way off, being much dearer because of the Land-Carriage. Brick and
Lime are very dear also; and one cannot build an ordinary House at less charge than five
or six hundred Livres1 for Brick, and twice as much for Lime. The Houses are covered
with Tiles made half round, and half an Inch thick; so that they look white when they are
used, and do not last; and it is for that reason that the Bricklayers lay them double, and
make them to keep whole. Canes which they call Bambous serve for Laths to fasten the
Tiles to; and the Carpenters wok which supports all this, is only made of pieces of round
Tim ber: Such Houses as these are made for the Rich; but those the meaner sort of People
live in, are made of Canes, and covered with the branches of Palm-trees.
Now, it is better building in the Indies in the time of Rain, then in the fair weather, be
cause the heat is so great, and the force of the Sun so violent, when the Heavens are clear,
that every thing dries before it be consolidated, and cracks and chinks in a trice; whereas
Rain tempers that heat, and hindering the Operation of the Sun, the Mason-work has
time to dry. When it rains the Work-men have no more to do, but to cover their Work
with Wax-cloth, but in dry weather there is no remedy; all that can be done is to lay wet
Tiles upon the Work as fast as they have made an end of it; but they dry so soon, that they
give but little help.
• Indian Travels v f Thevenot and Careri, ed. S. Sen, New Delhi, 1949, pp. 22-3.
1 Six hundred Livres were equivalent to about 400 Rupees of the Mughals during the seventeenth
century.
Original from
D igitized by
A P P E N D IX II
On Elephants Statues 3
In Plate 1 we notice a pair of elephants on each side of an arched gateway standing on two
separate platforms. This painting pertains to the construction of the Fathpur Sikri
buildings. Their trunks are shown raised and interlaced at the top, almost touching the
keystone of the arch. These two elephants still stand before the Hathipol gate
(M onscrrate’s ‘Circus gate’) of the Fathpur Sikri complex, but they are now in a ruined
state. Monserrate saw them in their full glory in the 1580s. He writes:1
For there stand in front of this gateway, which they seem to guard, two statues o f
elephants, with uplifted trunks, and life-size. These elephants are so majestic, and so
true to life, that one might judge them to be the work of Phidias.
The painting also reveals chains tied to their front legs, their saddlery, bells and tusks.
If and when the Archaeological Survey of India decides to restore these broken statues to
their pristine state, they will have to copy the representations of these elephants in this
painting.
The two statues are in high relief,23and not in the round. They were not made out o f
blocks of rock, but were ‘of large pieces of hewn stone laid in m ortar and joined by iron
cramps’.3 Therefore, properly speaking, we should not consider either of them as sculp
ture. A Mughal painting of the early eighteenth century (Plate 2), perhaps a copy of the
original executed in the seventeenth century, offers some hints on this technique, irrespec
tive of the fact that the two statues of elephants depicted in it are in the round. The paint
ing in question displays the construction of a palace, and we notice in the foreground an
elephant made of pink stone being given finishing touches. The first impulse is to coo-
dude that it is made out of a single rock or stone. But this expectation is belied by the
other statue, a little away from the first, which is shown only half-finished (without head,
trunk and tusks). This is being presented for inspection to an exalted dignitary (chief
architect, supervisor or the ruler?), while the ‘sculptor’, in all probability, is gauging its
length with a measuring rod. The first, near-complete statue in the immediate foreground,
has the larger part of its trunk missing: but the ‘missing’ part of the trunk is being pre
pared by a sangtardsh (in the bottom right comer) who is portrayed sitting on a slab of
stone, holding a hammer in his right hand and a chisd in his left. The cylindrical form of
the stone being worked upon, and the dear grooves on it, are definite proof that the
elephant’s trunk is being shaped by the sculptor. This was to be fitted on to the first part
of the trunk, which has been shown being ‘fixed’ to the head of the dephant by another
sculptor using a hammer and assisted by his mate. Three more sculptors or artisans are
1. Monserrate, p. 31.
2. E. W. Smith, part iii, pi. LV.
3. Ibid., p. 33.
Original from
D igitized by
Appendices 49
giving finishing touches to the elephant’s right ear, tail and back respectively. The long
knife-like tool in the hand of the one taking care of its tail should be noted. And Qnally, as
if to clinch the issue, the artist has not forgotten to depict two large slabs of stone lying on
the ground, on each side of the first elephant, as a reminder that these two statues were
made from pieces of hewn stone.
W hat is interesting, however, is that both these statues have been put. on an open
wooden cart with four solid wheels, to be pushed around by human power. This is under
standable, for it seems that the process of making such statues in the round was done on
the cart itself. When completed, the statues could be transported with ease on the wheeled
carts to the place where they were to be installed. They were then taken off their carts by
mechanical devices for hauling and lifting objects, most probably by a combination of a
series of pulleys (as was done for the Ashokan pillars in the reign of Sultan Feroze Shah
Tughlaq).
A similar technique must have been used in making the stone elephants at Akbar's
orders, which were later put up at one of the gates of the Agra Fort.4 A source records the
installation o f statues of elephants on Shah Ja h a n ’s orders at the gate adjacent to the m ar
ket within the Delhi Fort complex.56These statues were seen by Bernier. They were not in
high relief, but made in the round; and they, too, were made of pieces of hewn stone, in
line with the technique already described.
However, this does not mean that such statues were never made out of one single block
of rock. Jahangir writes that he had a large white rock, which he found in the river-bed near
Jalalabad, carved in the form of an elephant.7 Yet another source refers to the fact that
Shah Jah an once saw two statues of elephants near Naushahra, which Jahangir had ear
lier ordered to be carved out of two huge blocks of rock that had fallen on to the road,
blocking the passage.8
4. C f.A ’tn, i, p. 441.

5. lAmal-i Salih, iii, pp. 44-5. For an unnecessary and futile debate over these elephant statues of
the Delhi Red Fort with erroneous conclusions, see H. Beveridge, T he Elephant Statues of Agra
and Del hi’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1909, pp. 743-6; and ‘The Delhi Elephant Statues',
ibid., 1913, pp. i049-54. Also sec R. Froude Tucker, ‘The Elephant Statues at Delhi’, ibid,
1910, pp. 490-4. In fact, our Plate 2 settles the issue.
6. Bernier, pp. 256-7.
7. Tu&ik-iJahangtri, p. 50.
8. 'Amal-i Salih, ii, p. 15.
Original from
D igitized by
A P P E N D IX I I I
With regard to the Taj Mahal, Tavernier tells us:

I witnessed the commencement and accomplishment of this great work, on which twenty-two years
have been spent, during which twenty thousand men worked incessantly; this is sufficient to enable
one to realize that the cost of it has been enormous. It is said that tht scaffoldings alotu cost more than the
entire work, because, from want of wood, they, as well as the supports of the arches, had all to be made of brick;
this has entailed much labour and heavy expenditure (my emphasis).1
No other source, Persian or non-Persian, confirms Tavernier’s information that scaf
folding for the Taj or, for that matter, any other building constructed in the A gra-D elhi
zone, was made of brick. To my knowledge, neither in Europe nor in any other culture-
area at any time of history, is there anything to show that bricks were used as scaffolding.2*
Nor is it acceptable that recourse to brick was the result of ‘want of wood’ in the neigh
bourhood of Agra. If this were true, every large building in this region would have needed
brick scaffolding, and not the Taj alone. The use of brick as scaffolding is thus not sub
stantiated at all. Moreover, if the Mughal Emperors and exalted nobles could procure
marble from Rajasthan and lime from Gujarat for their buildings in Agra and Delhi,
bamboo and timber could surely have been brought to this region if it lacked these m ate
rials. Tavernier might have been an ‘eye-witness’ to the commencement of the T aj, but
his own statement, ‘It is said’ proves that his information on the scaffolding was based on
hearsay. Even during the early twentieth century the legend was current that very long
ramps were built to supply material to the masons of the Taj. It is wholly improbable that
the 4scaffoldings alone cost more than the entire work.*
1 Tavernier, Travels in India, i, ed. V. Ball (reprint), 1977, p. 91.

2 See Charles Singer et al., A History of Technology, ii (reprint), Oxford, 1957, p. 388 and figs. 347,
349.
Original from
D igitized by
Notes
(to pages 1-5)
Chapter 1
1. Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddima, tr. Franz Rosenthal, ii, New York, 1958, p. 355.
2. Ibid., p. 357.
3. See Donald Hill, A History o f Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times, London, 1984,
p. 98.
4. Cf. Ibn Khaldun, p. 358.
5. Ibid.
6. See Bernier, Travels in the Mogul Empire, 1656-68, tr. A. Constable (reprint), Delhi
1968, p. 240.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid. pp. 240-1.
9. Ibid., p.247.
10. Ibid. There were no bad gin or ‘wind-catchers’ (wind towers) in India. For bad gir in
Persia, see A rthur U. Pope, Persian Architecture, London, 1965, p. 245, fig. 336.
11. Ibid.
12. Cf. Abul Fazl, A ’in-i-Akbari, i, ed. Blochmann, Calcutta, 1867, p. 170.
13. F. Pelsaert, Jahangir's India, ed. & tr. W. H. Moreland and P. Geyl (reprint), Delhi,
1972, pp. 1-2.
14. Ibid., p. 2.
15. Ibid., p. 4.
16. Only one building at the Fathpur Sikri complex has been ‘identified’ as the residence
of two Mughal nobles (see Naheed K han, ‘Aristocratic Housing under Akbar—A
Survey o f the House of Abul Fazl and Faizi At Fathpur Sikri’, Paper presented at the
Indian History Congress, Bombay, 1980).
17. Pelsaert, p. 56.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. See R. S. Sharma, Indian Feudalism , Calcutta, 1965, p. 58.
Chapter 2
1. We have in mind the work being done at the Fathpur Sikri complex and at Baroda
under the aegis o f the Archaeological Survey of India, in collaboration with Aligarh
Muslim University and Baroda University respectively.
2. S. A thar Abbas Rizvi and Vincent J . A. Flynn, Fathpur-Sikri, Bombay, 1975.
3. E. W. Smith, The Moghul Architecture o f Fathpur Sikri, 4 vols., Allahabad, 1898.
4. For example, sec R. Nath, The Immortal Taj Mahal, Bombay, 1972; Some Aspects o f
Mughal Architecture, New Delhi, 1976; ‘Scrutiny of the Persian D ata Related to the
Original from
D igitized by
52 N o tts to pages 5 -8
Builders of the Taj M ahal’, Indo-Irasdca, vol. xxxii, nos. 1 & 2. M arch and Ju n e 1979,
pj>. 1-18.
5. A *tn, pp. 167-71.
6. Hans E. WulfT, The Traditional Crajls o f Persia, Massachusetts, 1966.
7. Zafarur Rahman, Farhang Istaldhdt-i Peshawaran, 8 vols., Delhi, 1939-41.
8. In respective order: Abul Fazl, Akbamama, ii. Bib. Indica, Calcutta, 1873, p. 247;
Shams Siraj ‘Afif, Tarikh-i Feroze Shdhx, ed. Wilayat Husain, Bib. Indica, C alcutta,
1891, p. 135; ‘Arif Qandahari, Tdrikh-i-Qandahdri, ed. I. A. Arshi etal., Rampur, 1962,
p. 148; M uhammad Kazim, ‘Alamgimdma, ed. Khadim Hussain and Abdul Hai, Bib.
Indica, Calcutta, 1865-73, p. 248 (also ‘Abdul Hamid Lahori, Badshdhnama, Bib. In
dica, ii, Calcutta, 1866-72, p. 326); Muhammad Waris, Badshdhnama, transcript at
the Centre of Advanced Study, Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University,
p. 38. For other terms like mutakallafan-i ‘imdral, sec Lahori, ii, p. 224.
9. ‘Afif, p. 331. Ibn Battuta mentions Ahmad bin Aiyaz as the shaknal-ul ‘imdral during
the reign of Sultan Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq (see Ibn Battuta, The Rehla, tr. M ahdi H u
sain, Baroda, reprint, 1976, p. 55). Ahmad bin Aiyaz is BaranTs Ahmad Aiyaz,
whom he mentions as the shahna-i- ‘imdral. (Cf. Ziauddin Barani, Tarikh-i Feroze ShdJd,
ed. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Bib. Indica, Calcutta, 1862, p. 424).
10. See Hedayatullah Bihari, Heddyat-ul Qjxwd‘id, Aligarh Collection no. Farsiya 108, ff.
39a-40b. (I am grateful to my colleague, Mrs Rafat Bilgrami, for drawing my atten
tion to this information).
11. Akbamama, ii, p. 247; Nizamuddin Ahmad, Tabaqdt-i Akbari, ii, ed. B. De, Bib. Indica,
Calcutta, 1931, p. 144; Shaikh Farid Bhakkari, Zakhirat-ul Khwdnin, ed. Syed Moinul
Haq, Karachi, 1961, p. 219; Shah Nawaz Khan, M d’asir-al Umard\ iii, ed. A bdur
Rahim and A shraf Ali, Bib. Indica, Calcutta, 1888-91, pp. 62-6.
12. A*in, i, pp. 202-3.
13. See Abul Qasim Namakin, Munshdl o Ruq‘dl-i Namakin, India Office Library, no.
1535, f. 76a (I am indebted to my colleague, M r I.A. Zilli, for this evidence and for
note no. 27 as well).
14. Cf. Akbamama, iii, p. 17. At Ranthambhor, too, Qasim Khan was entrusted with the
making of sabdl in association with Raja Todar Mai (ibid., p. 356).
15. The Commentary o f Father Monserrate, tr. J . S. Hoyland and annotated by N. Banneiji,
Cuttack, 1922, pp. 80-1.
16. Akbamama, iii, p. 405.
17. Ibid., pp. 356, 537, 548, 559.
18. V. A. Smith, Akbar— the Great Mogul (reprint), Delhi, 1962, p. 317.
19. E. W. Smith, The Moghul Architecture o f Fathpur-Sikri, iv, pp. 29, 30.
20. Cf. V. A. Smith, p. 317.
21. The inscriptions on Bahauddin’s tomb, and the mosque built by him, establish the
fact that he served Jahangir, not Akbar, as the royal lime-burner. He also worked as
darogha or overseer, probably of the lime-burners working under him. (See Rizvi and
Flynn, pp. 126, 135).
22. See Salih Kanbu, ‘Amal-i Salih, i, ed. G. Yazdani, Bib. Indica, Calcutta, 1912, p. 385;
Lahori, ii, p. 330.
23. ‘Amal-i Salih, iii, p. 52.
Original from
D igitized by
N o tts to pages 8 -1 2 53
24. Ibid., ii, p. 28; W ins, pp. 3 8 ,3 9 , 83;M i*asir-al U m ara\ iii, pp. 463-4.
25. *Am al-i Salih , iii, p. 28.
26. W ans, p. 38.
27. Munshat Namakin, Aligarh Collection no. farsiya 26, ff. 132b-3b.
28. Cf. ‘Afif, p. 331.
29. Ibn Hasan, The Central Structure o f the M ughal Empire (reprint), Delhi, 1970, pp. 237-8.
30. Tuzuk-iJahangiri, ed. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Ghazipur & Aligarh, 1863-4, p. 318.
31. See N ur Bakhsh, ‘Historical Notes on the Lahore Fort and its Buildings*, Annual Re
port o f the Archaeological Survey o f India, 1902-3, p. 221.
32. Mu*tamad K han, Iqbdlnama-iJahangtri, Calcutta, 1865, p. 171. Also W ans, p. 38.
33. *Am al-i Salih, iii, p. 434, 443.
34. N ur Bakhsh, p. 222.
35. W ans, p. 109.
36. ‘A m al-i-Silih, iii, p. 266.
37. C handrabhan Brahman, Chahar Chaman, Aligarh Collection, farsiya (4), no. 293/63, ff.
6 2 a-b .
38. M d ’asir-al Umard\ iii, p. 461.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid., p. 462; also W ans, p. 40 {as mir samdn).
41. SeeJ. N. Sarkar, M ughal Administration, Calcutta, 1932, p. 44.
42. Cf. Ibn Hasan, p. 242.
43. Kalim dt-i Taiyabat, ed. Inayatullah K han, Aligarh Collection, farsiya (39), no. 278, f.
22b.
44. Lahori, ii, p. 347.
45. *Am al-i Salih, iii, p. 52. Also sec Kazim, pp. 395,452.
46. Tuguk-i Jahangiri, pp. 317-18.
47. See Khwaja Kam gar Husaini, M a ’asir-i Jahangtri, ed. Azra Alavi, Delhi, 1978, pp.
205, 309.
48. ‘Arif, p. 148.
49. Cf. Kewal Ram, Tazkirat-al Umara1, Habibganj Collection, Aligarh Muslim Universi
ty, farsiya no. 32/57, f. 194b.
50. Lahori, ii, p. 491.
51. Ibid., p. 509.
52. *Am al-i Salih, ii, p. 44.
53. E . B. Havell, Indian Architecture, London, 1913, p. 163.
54. Ibid., p. 161.
55. M onserrate, p. 201.
56. See Zakknrat-ul Khwdnin, ii, p. 403.
57. This depicts the Fathpur Sikri complex (reproduced in T. W. Arnold and J . V. S.
Wilkinson, The Library o f Chester Beatty: Catalogue o f the Indian Miniatures, ii, Blooms
bury, 1936, pi. 24).
58. ‘Afif, p. 331.
59. Ibid.
60. A in , p. 170.
61. Sec, for example, Munshdt, Aligarh Collection, f. 133b.
62. A'tn, i, p. 170.
Original from
D igitized by
I
54 Notes to pages 12-16
63. See W. H. Moreland, ‘Some Side-lights on Life in Agra, 1637-39’, Journal o f the United
Provinces Historical Society iii, pt. 1, 1923, p. 160.
,
64. Cf. Wim Swaan, The Gothic Cathedral London, 1969, p. 76.
65. Ibid.
66. Baranl, p. 341.
67. Babumama, ii, tr. A. S. Beveridge (reprint), New Delhi, 1970, p. 520.
68. Akbamdma , ii, p. 247.
69. ‘Arif, p. 145.
70. ‘Am al-i Salih, iii, p. 52.
71. Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Travels in India, 1640-67, i, ed. W. Crooke, London, 1925,
P- 91.
72. See Ronald Lewcock, ‘Materials and Techniques’ in Architecture o f the Islamic Worlds
ed. George Michcll, London, 1978, p. 132.
73. Barani, p. 341.
74. M onscrrate, p. 200.
75. ‘Am al-i Salih , iii, pp. 26-7.
76. See M d ’asir-al Umara’, iii, p. 463; also Waris, p. 38.
77. Lewcock, pp. 131-2.
78. Ibn Khaldun, pp. 363, 365.
79. For example, see *Amal-i Salih , ii, p. 8; iii, pp. 27, 52.
80. Munshdt, Aligarh Collection, f. 133b.
81. ‘Am al-i Salih , ii, pp. 471 -2 .
82. Waris, p. 39: also M d ’asir-al Umara’, iii, p. 463.
83. Lahori, p. 224; ‘Am al-i Salih , ii, p. 8.
84. Lahori, p. 224.
85. Akhbar darbdr mua‘Ua, Royal Asiatic Society, London, akhbdr dated 43rd regnal year of
Aurangzeb (Microfilm available in the Department of History, AM U, no. 35). Also
see M unshi Malikzada, Nigamdma-i Munsfu, MS no. 36 (Department of History,
AM U), fT. 157a-b, for preparing the tarah of a damaged building at Peshawar on
Aurangzeb’s order.
87. Kalimdt-i Taiyabdl, fT. 27a-b.
’,
88. See M d ’asir-al Umara ii, p. 469.
89. Cf. Babumama, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, no. IM 276-1913 (‘Laying out
a Garden*).
90. Lewcock, p. 132.
91. Ibid.
92. Ibid.; also R. Nath, ‘Persian Data’, p. 4.
Chapter 3
1. It would be tedious to dte all the references here; the following, in respective
order, will suffice: Ain, i, p. 108; ibid., ii, p. 556 (Lahori, ii, p. 476); A in , ii, p. 512;
Lahori, ii, p. 325; Waris, p. 43 (also Kazim, p. 468); Lahori, ii, pp. 225,476, 325 (also
Original from
D igitized by
N o tts to pages 16-18 55
W ans, p. 52); W ans, p. 43 (also ‘Amal-i Salih, iii, p. 42). Sang Maryam, in the opinion
of N ur Bakhsh, is what the Indian architect* call sang abri, a variegated fossiliferous
kind of marble (see N ur Bakhsh, 'Lahore Fort', p. 223, n. 2). For sangyaskm, see
George W att, A Dictionary o f Economic Products o f India, iv (reprint) Delhi, p. 535. Yasha
in Turkish means jasper.
2. Lahori, ii, p. 325.
3. ,
See Archaeological Survey o f India— Annual Report, 1871-72 p. 203.
4. Waris, p. 73. Also Lahori, ii, p. 325.
5. ‘Arif, p. 145.
6. Ibid. For sangghulula, see A ’in , i, p. 168.
7. Travels o f Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608-67 , ii, Hakluyt Society, London, 1914, p.
231.
8. ‘Amal-i Salih, iii, p. 41; Waris, p. 46.
9. M undy, p. 241.
10. A ’in, i, p. 168.
11. Irfan Habib, 'Changes in Technology in Medieval India’, Studies in History, voi. ii, no.
1, 1980, p. 22.
12. W. Foster (ed.), Early Travels in India (reprint), Delhi, 1968, p. 185.
13. See, for example, The Diaries o f Slreynsham Master, 1675-80, cd. R. C. Temple, Indian
Series Records, London, 1911, pp. 92-3: ‘T he houses in Bengala arc all made of
mudd, dug out o f the ground . . .* For mud houses roofed with straw, see a painting
by Goverdhan in S. C. Welch, Imperial Mughal Painting, London, 1978, pi. 28.
14. A ’in, i, p. 169. Tiles ran a hazard from the monkeys: ‘they would break the tiles’ (see
Tavernier, i, p. 64). For khaprel-rooiing in G ujarat sec A ’in, ii, p. 485.
15. A ’in, i, p. 168. See also G. Watt, The Commercial Products o f India, Delhi, 1966, pp. 485-6.
16. Alexander Hamilton, A New Account o f the East Indies, ii, cd. W. Foster, London, 1930,
p. 175; John Fryer, .4 New Account o f East India and Persia & C. 1672-81, ii, cd.
W. Crookc, London, 1909-15, p. 75.
17. Wratt, Commercial Products, p. 1068.
18. See Fuluhdl-i Feroze Shahi, cd. Shaikh Abdur Rashid, Aligarh, 1954, pp. 13, 1'4.
19. A ’in, i, p. 169.
20. Ibid.
21. Welch, p. 28; Mario Bussagli, Indian Miniatures, Milan, 1966, pi. 12: ‘Attack on vil
lage’ (the title is misleading).
22. Bernier, p. 246.
23. Cf. G. M. Moraes (tr.), ‘Surat in 1663 as described by Fr. Manuel Godinho’, Journal
o f the Royal Asiatic Society (Bombay), New Scries, vol. 27, pt. ii, Ju n e 1952, p. 125.
24. A ’in, i, p. 168.
25. A. J . Qaisar, The Indian Response to European Technology and Culture, A .D . 1498-1707, De
lhi, 1982, pp. 106-7. Also see A la, i, pp. 169,171.
26. Cf. Amir Khusrau, K hazd’in al-Futuh , ed. Wahid Mirza, Calcutta, 1953, pp. 46, 158.
Also see Farhang, i, p. 89, s.o. gilwa.
27. A ’in, i, pp. 169, 171. Also Farhang, s.o. kengil (*= kahgil).
28. Cf. Farhang, s.o. gara.
29. W att, Commercial Products, p. 713.
Original from
D igitized by
56 Notes to pages 18-20
30. H. Cousens, Medieval Temples o f the Dakhan, ASI, p. 35.

31. Ibid., p. 5.
32. J.D . Beglar in A S I Report, 1871-72, p. 75.
33. Jam es Skinner, Tashrih-al Aqwam, BM Add. 27255, no. 91, p. 263.
34. ‘Afif, p. 331.
35. Sec W att, Economic Products, ii, p. 144. For kankar-lime, sec also Moreland, p. 160.
36. Futuhdt-i Feroze Shd/u, p. 13. The word gach in the text was read kaj (curved), and it
was translated so by H. M. Elliot in the History o f India, as Told by its own Historians, ii
(reprint), Allahabad, 1964, p. 383: ‘When the tomb was built, its court (sahan) had
not been made curved (kaj), but I now made it s o . . . ’ Cunningham accepted this
erroneous reading and translation, which eventually led him to a curious theorization
about the tomb of Iltutmish. He writes: ‘The only part difficult to explain is the state
ment about the court of the tomb, which he made curved. Now, the word sahan, a
“court” , means also “area” and “square” , and the word kaj or “curved” means also
“ bent and angular” . I think it possible, therefore, that the area of the original tom b
may have been square, and that when Firoz re-erected the fallen pillars he changed
the shape to angular octagon. This would have saved the four com er pillars of the
square, which could then have been brought into use elsewhere’ (ASI Report, 1871-
72, pp. 145, 146). C. Stephen in 1876, however, made a correct reading and trans
lated it as ‘plaster’ (See C. Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, Delhi, 1876,
p. 75). T he moral o f this long note is that no scholar should rely on translations.
37. ‘Afif, p.439.
38. Amir Khusrau, p. 24.
39. A fa, i, p. 168.
40. Tck C hand, Bahdr-i fAjam, Nawal Kishore, 1916, s. v. gach shirin.
41. if fa, i,p . 168.
42. Waris, p. 64.
43. Tavernier, p. 35.
44. Ibid.
45. Lahori, i, p. 236.
46. A ’in, i, p. 168.
47. W att, Economic Products, ii, p. 147.
48. A fa, i, p. 168.
49. See W att, Economic Products, ii, p. 147.
50. Farhang, p. 80, s.o. pazdwah.
51. W att, Commercial Products, pp. 709; also W att, Economic Products, ii, pp. 245-6.
52. Ain, i, p. 169.
53. W att, Commercial Products, p. 714. Dharampal, Indian Science and Technology in the Eight
eenth Century, Delhi, 1971, pp. 164-8. Also see Nath, Taj Mahal, p. 79.
54. ‘Afif, p. 376. Hodivala rightly suggests that the dori in the printed text should be read
as rori (see S.H. Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, Bombay, 1939, pp. 336-7).
55. ‘Afif, p.377.
56. Ibid., p. 125. T he Farhang spells it as khuwa (p. 81, s.o. kirgawwa), defining it as ‘pow
der of bricks’ (ini id chura). Hodivala’s translation of khur as m ortar is, however, inex
act (Hodivala, p. 335).
Original from
D igitized by
N otes to pages 2 1 -2 3 57
57. W att, Economic Products, ii, p. 152.

59. W ulff.p. 113.
60. Foster, p. 311.
61. A’ui, i, p. 170.
62. See Farhang, pp. 83, 141, s.v. sandala and sandalkari respectively. In this case, the lime
was ground like sandal.
63. Jahangir’s India, p. 66.
64. Foster, p. 311.
65. Jahangir’s India , p. 66. John Marshall makes a similar observation: ‘T he Indians, to
preserve their tombs from decay, after whited them with lime or Chana [china],
which when it is Well dryed thereon, they take a large smooth stone with which they
rub very hard the whole tomb, dipping the stone in water to make the lime moist, and
this puts an excellent gloss upon it and preserves i t . . . for many years without de
—
cay.’ (John M arshall in India Notes and Observations in Bengal, ed. S. A. Khan, London,
1927, p . 385).
66. r « ,i,p . 171.
67. Ibid., pp. 169,171. For safndgari, see ‘Afif, p. 290.
68. Monserrate, Commentary, p. 34. Since this book was published in 1922, N ur Bakhsh
did not have the benefit of consulting it for his article, ‘The Agra Fort and its Build
ings’, A S I —Annual Report, 1903-4, iii, pp. 164-93.
69. Akbarnama, ii, p. 247.
70. Tabaqat-i Akbari, ii, p. 179.
71. Cf. M a ’asir-ul Umara’, iii, p. 63.
72. Cf. A S I— Annual Report, 1909-10, Calcutta, 1914, p. 95; Cousens, p. 33; Beglar, p. 75.
73. Tabaqat-i Akbari, ii, p. 245.
Chapter 4
1. Akbarnama, ii, p. 247; fAmal-i Salih, iii, p. 28; W ans, pp. 38, 39.
2. ‘Amal-i Salih, iii, p. 28; Lahori, i, p. 223 and ii, p. 323.
3. Akbarnama, ii, p. 247.
4. See Lahori, i, p. 223; Nath, Taj Mahal, p. 79.
5. Lahori, i, p. 223, and ii, p. 323. Contrast it with the infirm foundations of the Hindu
buildings: ‘Very little was done in the way of excavating for firm foundations, the
hard black earth or the solid rock, so often at the surface, being deemed sufficient
Upon this was laid a bed of great rough boulders from which the walls directly
sprang, the lowest course of dressed masonry being roughly hammer-dressed to fit
upon the uneven boulders. Consequently, any settlement or yielding of the founda
tions, as has frequently been the case, has caused the collapse of the walls above.’ (See
Cousens, p. 6, also PI. L X X V III for a clear depiction of such foundations. This re
mark of Cousens refers to temples in the south).
6. See Tabaqat-i Akbari, p. 179; ‘Arif, p. 147.
7. ‘Afif, p. 126.
Original from
D igitized by
58 N otes to pages 2 3 -2 8
8. Tabaqdt-i Akbari, p. 179.

9. ‘Afif, p. 126.
10. Tabaqal-i Akbari, p. 179.
11. ‘Arif, p. 147.
12. Cf. Bahdr-i ‘Ajam , s.o. shadurwan. Also Stcingass, Persian-English Dictionary (reprint),
New Delhi, 1973, s.o. shadurwan. Shadurwan in Hindustani is called dhus. (See Farhang ,
p. 130). For a hint o f shadurwan in a medieval building in India, sec A S I — Report, 1871-
72, iv, C alcutta, 1874, p. 164.
13. I bn K haldun, ii, p. 254.
14. See The Encyclopaedia o f Islam, iv, Leiden, 1978, s.o. Ka'ba (p. 317).
15. Ibid., p. 319.
16. Tashrih-al Aqwarn, no. 80. *
17. A 7«, i, p. 170. Also sec Lahori, ii, pp. 312, 314, 323.
18. Ibid., p. 168.
19. Foster, Early Travels, p. 157.
20. *Amal-i Salih , iii, p. 42.
21. WulfT,p. 128.
22. See, for example, Lahori, ii, pp. 323,324. Also ‘Am al-i Salih, ii, p. 381.
23. Tashrih-al Aqwdm, no. 55 (p. 254). For brick-kilns in Persia, sec WulfT, p. 116.
24. A In, i, p . 170.
25. For nihami, sec M uhammad Shadiyabadi, M iftdh-ul fuzalcT, BM O r. 3299, f. 46b (s.o.
bishing).
26. Tashrih-al Aqwdm, no. 69 (p. 220).
27. A ’tn, i, p. 170.
28. Sec Nafahdl-ul uns min Hazrdt-ul Quds, BM Or. 1362, f. 39b: ‘Ironmonger turns a Saint’.
29. The L ife o f the IcelanderJon Olafsson, ii, tr. D. B. Phillpotts, Hakluyt Society, 2nd Scries,
London, 1931, pp. 142-3.
30. Cf. WulfT.p. 128.
31. *Am al-i Salih, iii, p. 41.
32. M onscrrate, pp. 200-1.
33. Akbatndma , Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. Sec Note 57, C hapter 2.
34. Tashrih-al Aqwdm, no. 91 (p. 263).
35. A ’mi, i, p. 170.
36. See M iftdh-ulf u z a l a f. 219b (r.o. kulukh kob). The word dhonsa may have been derived
from dhonsna, that is, ‘to beat and pound’ (sec Farhang, p. 130; s.o. dhus).
37. Ibid.
38. See Akbamama , ii, p. 337.
39. Sec a Persian painting by Bihzad in the Khamsa of Nizami, BM O r. 6810, f. 154b (ad .
1494): ‘Building a Palace’.
40. Cf. Swaan, The Gothic Cathedral, pp. 76 and 79 and plates 63 and 67 for hand- and
wheel-barrows in Europe.
41. Steingass, s.o. rag. For raj, see Farhang Asifiya, compiled by Khan Sahab Sycd Ahmad
Dchlvi, ii, Delhi 1974, s.o. raj. Also Farhang, p. 134, s.o. raj.
42. ‘Afif, p. 331.
43. 7Lakhirat-ul Khwanin, ii, p. 403.
Original from
Digitized by
N otes to pages 2 8 -3 2 59
44. Farhang, p. 139, s.v. kim i. For the sketches of many such tools, see S.P. Verma, A rt and
Material Culture in the Paintings o f Akbar’s Court, Delhi, 1978, pi. LX V II.
45. Bahdr-i ‘Ajam, s.v. sdqul; Farhang, p. 139, s.v. sul, sdhul.
46. A S I— Annual Report, 1871-72, p. 147. For this practice in Hindu monuments in the
South, see Cousens, p. 6.
47. A S I— Annual Report, 1871-72, p. xiv.
48. Sec Farhang, p. 95, s.v. rapta.
49. N a th ,‘Persian Data*, p. 10.
50. For the use of pulleys for drawing water from wells, see note 66 (below). For hanging,
see Akbamdma, Victoria & Albert Museum, London, I.S. 2-34/117: ‘Execution of
Shah Abul M a‘ali at Kabul*.
51. See Siral-i Feroze Shdhi, Bankipur/vii/547, fT. 94b-102a. Also Qaisar, p. 33.
52. Swaan, pp. 78 and 79 and plates 66 and 67. Also Hugh Gregor et al., Castles, London,
1977, p . l .
53. For example, see Akbamdma, ii, p. 337. Also ‘Amal-i Salih, iii, p. 38.
54. Farhang, p. 92, s.v. par; Bahdr-i *Ajam, s.v. chob bast; Steingass, chob bast and chob band.
55. For the Islamic culture-area, see a Persian painting executed by Bihzad in the Khamsa
of Nizami, BM Or. 6810, f. 154.
56. Cf. John Harvey, M an the Builder, London, 1973, pp. 51-2.
57. See small Clive Album, f. 56, no. I. S. 48-1956 (Victoria & Albert Museum, ‘An
Artist a t Work’, c. 1610-15, Mughal school).
58. Thomas Herbert, Some Years’ Travels into divers parts o f Asia and Afrique, London, 1638,
p. 68 (cited in N ur Bakhsh, ‘Lahore Fort*, p. 222).
59. See Ebba Koch, ‘Jahangir and the Angels: Recently Discovered Wall Painting under
European Influencem the Fort of Lahore*, in India and the West, cd. Joachim Deppert,
New Delhi, 1983, pp. 173-% and accompanying plates.
60. Lahori, i, p. 225.
61. Zakhirat-ul Khwdmn, i, p. 87.
62. For example, see Lahori, ii, p. 326.
63. A fin, i, p. 170.
64. For the introduction of saqiyd in India, see Irian Habib, ‘Technological Changes and
Society— 13th and 14th Centuries’, Presidential Address, Medieval India Section,
Indian History Congress, Varanasi, 1%9, pp. 12-19.
65. For example: Khamsa of Nizami, BM Or. 12208, ff. 65a, 99b, 294a; Arnold and Wilkinson,
The library of Chester Beatty & C, ii, pi. 23 (reproduced from the Akbamdma. Note the
gigantic sdqxya). Also see Akbamdma, VfitA, I.S. 111/117; VAA, D. 383-1885 (Note the
mechanism partly set up on the roof of a building).
66. Cf. Khamsa, BM Or. 12208, f. 45a. See Babur’s description of this device in Bdbwmd-
ma, p. 487.
67. Rizvi and Flynn, p. 112.
68. See Nafahdt-ul uns, f. 142a.
69. Cf. Akbamdma, VAA, I.S. 47/117.
70. For gardens in Persia, see Arthur U. Pope, Persian Architecture, London, 1%5,
pp. 245-9.
71. For example: Babundma, National Museum, Delhi, f. 121a; S. Tyulaycv, Miniatures of
Original from
D igitized by
60 N otes to pages 3 2 -3 5
Babumama, Moscow, 1960, pi. 21; Bdbumama, BM Or. 3714, ff. 173b, 180b, 181b.
B abum dm a,\& .A, I.M. 276-1913 and I.M. 277-1913 (double-page illustration).
72. Khamsa, BM Or. 12208, ff. 65a, 99b. 294a.
73. C. M. Villicrs Stuart, Gardens o f the Great Mughals, Ixrndon, 1913, p. viii.
74. See Bernier, p. 256.
75. Villicrs Stuart, p. ix.
76. Bernier, p. 247.
77. Villicrs Stuart, p. 27.
78. For detailed layout of Mughal gardens, see Sylvia Crowe et al., The Gardens o f Mughul
India , Delhi, 1972.
Chapter 5
1. This summing up is based on the following works: N. Pevsner, ‘T he Term
“ Architect” in the Middle Ages’, Speculum, vol. xvii, 1942, pp. 549-62; John H.
Harvey, ‘The Education of the Mediaeval Architect’, Journal o f the Royal Institute o f
British Architects, 3rd series, vol. L II, June 1945, pp. 230-3; L. Shelby, ‘The Role of
the M aster Mason in Mediaeval English Building’, Speculum, vol. xxxix, no. 3, July
1964, pp. 387-403; and M artin S. Briggs, The Architect in History, Oxford, 1927.
2. See Pevsner, p. 549, n. 3.
3. Cf. Briggs, p. 30.
4. Ibid., p. 31. Briggs explains the significance of this statement of Vitruvius as follows:
‘No modem architect would deny the importance of draughtsmanship and geometry,
but the value of the other subjects is less obvious, and Vitruvius’s own explanation
must be given. The “ Knowledge of medicine” to which he refers means what we call
now “architectural hygiene” , and the opinions of the jurists’ represent what we term
“ architectural law” . The “ history” he mentions would be better defined as “historic
al symbolism” ; the philosophy (including also a knowledge of physics) “ makes an
architect high-minded and not self-assuming, but rather renders him courteous, just,
and honest without avariciousness”; finally, music and astronomy were required in
those days for purposes which he explains, but which have lost their significance in
modem times.’
O n the architect’s knowledge o f ‘architectural law’, Ibn Khaldun observes: ‘T he
authorities have often recourse to the opinions of these men, about construction m at
ters which they understand better. For in towns with large populations, people live in
very crowded conditions. There, they compete with each other for space and air
above and below and for the use of the outside of a building. The owner fears lest (any
encroachment) cause damage to the walls, and, therefore, forbids it to his neighbour,
except where the neighbour has a legal right to it. (People) also have differences over
right-of-way and about outlets for running water and about refuse disposed of
through subterranean conduits. Occasionally, someone claims somebody else’s right
to (use of) a wall, caves, or a gutter, because the houses are close to each other. O r
someone may claim that his neighbour’s wall is in bad condition and he fears it will
collapse. He needs a judgement against the other party from an expert to force the
Original from
D igitized by
N otts to pages 3 5 -4 0 61
other party to tear the wall down and prevent damage to the neighbouring house. O r
a house or courtyard has to be divided between two parties, so that no damage to the
house or curtailment o f its usefulness is caused, and similar things.
‘All these matters are clear only to those who know architecture in all its details.
They can judge these details by looking at the joints and ties and the wooden parts.
(They can see whether) the walls arc leaning over or are straight, (whether) dwellings
are divided as required by their construction and (intended) use, and (whether)
water can flow in and out of the conduits without causing harm to the houses or walls
it flows through, and other things. They know about them and have the experience
that others do not have.’ (Ibn Khaldun, ii, pp. 361-2).
For the Persian architect being an 'accomplished professional’ of many parts, sec
Pope, p. 264.
5. Pevsner, p. 549.
6. Ibid., pp. 553, 557.
7. See Harvey, pp. 230-1, 252.
8. Pevsner, pp. 555, 559.
9. For details see Harvey, Pevsner and Briggs.
10. Cf. Shelby, p. 388.
11. See L. A. Mayer, Islamic Architects and their Works, Geneva, 1956, p. 25.
12. WulfF, p. 108.
13. Mayer, p. 26.
14. Ibid., p. 27.
15. Ibid., pp. 18, 19.
16. Ibid., p. 24. Also sec p. 19, it. 1 where Mayer admits that the Islamic architects were
not ‘ignorant’. He also enumerates those who specialized in mathematics, the
astrolabe and geometry. Cf. Lew cock, p. 130.
17. References are numerous: ‘Amal-i Salih, ii, p. 8; iii, pp. 27, 28, 52; Muhammad
Kazim, ‘Alamgimdma , pp. 423, 468; Lahori, i, p. 223.
19. Cf. Munshdt, Aligarh Collection, ff. 132b-133b.
20. A In, i, p. 170.
22. *Amal-i Salih, iii, p. 28.
24. Sec Sayyad Sulaiman Nadvi, ‘The Family of the Engineers who built the Taj Mahal
and the Delhi Fort \J B O R S , vol. 34, 1948, pp. 75-110.
25. Kazim, p. 468.
26. Kalimat-i Taiyabat, f. 22b.
27. Nadvi, p. 77.
28. Ibid., pp. 91-110.
29. Cf. Samaranganasulradhdra of King Bhoja of Dhara (Malwa), cited in Stella Kramrisch,
The Hindu Temple, Calcutta, 1946, p. 8.
30. Shelby, pp. 380-9.
31. Sec Nadvi, p. 87,106.
32. There is no such entry concerning an architect in Athar Ali’s The Apparatus o f Empire,
Delhi, 1985.
Original from
D igitized by
62 N otts to pages 40-42
33. Satish Chandra, Medieval India , Delhi, 1982, p. 67.

34. Mayer, p. 23.
35. Ibid., p. 21.
36. See Nadvi, p. 90.
37. Mayer, pp. 21-2. Also Lewcock, p. 131.
38. See M uhammad Raziuddin, Kunz-al Tdrikli, Budaun, a h. 1325/a.d 1906, p. 43, a. 1.
The inscription relates to the repair of the Jama* Masjid of Budaun (originally con
structed under Iltutmish), giving the name of one Abdul Malik Qazi as m r ‘imdral. (I
owe this reference to my friend M r Fam ikh Jalali, Department of History, AMU).
39. Cf. Mayer, p. 19. Also Lewcock, p. 131.
40. See Zafar Hasan, ‘The Inscription of D har and Mandu*, Epigraphies Indo-Moslemxca,
1909-10, p. 23. For its translation and decipherment, see Nadvi, p. 91; and Farrukh
Jalali, ‘Inscription of Some Mughal Architects’, paper presented at the seminar at
Dharwar held by the Epigraphical Society of India, 1985.
41. Nadvi, p. 81.
42. Ibid., pp. 95,98.
43. Ibid., pp. 82,83.
44. See Lewcock, p. 130.
45. Shelby, p. 391. Also see Lewcock, p. 132.
46. For a detailed discussion on this theme, see Shelby, ‘The Geometrical Knowledge of
Mediaeval M aster Masons’, Speculum, vol. 47, pp. 395-422. For Mughal India, see
M. Yasin, ‘Islamic Architecture in India’, Housing, Science, vol. 4, no. 5, 1980, pp.
429-40.
Original from
D igitized by
Bibliography
Contemporary Sources
Non-European
Ib n Khaldun, The Muqaddima, tr. Franz Rosenthal, vol. ii, New York, 1958.
Ziauddin Barani, Tarikh-i Feroze Shdhi, ed. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Bib. Indica, Calcutta,
1862.
Amir Khusrau, Khazai'n al-Futuh, cd. Wahid Mirza, Calcutta, 1953.
Ibn Battuta, The Rehla, tr. Mahdi Husain, Baroda, 1976.
Shaikh Abdur Rashid (cd.), Fuluhdt-i Feroze Shdhi, Aligarh, 1954.
Anonymous, Siral-i Feroze ShdJu, Bankipur/vii/547, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library, Patna.
Shams Siraj ‘Afif, Tarikh-i Feroze Shdhi, cd. Wilayat Husain, Bib. Indica, Calcutta, 1891.
Nizami, Khamsa of Nizami (a .d . 1494), Or. BM 6810.
Babur, Bdbumdma, vol. ii, tr. A.S. Beveridge, New Delhi 1970.
‘Arif Q andahari, Tarikh-i Qandahdri, cd. I. A. Arshi el al., Rampur, 1962.
Abul Qasim Nam akin, Munshdl o Ruq'dt-i Namakin, India Office Library, London, no.
1535.
--------- , Munshdl Namakin, Aligarh Collection (AMU), no. Jarsiya 26.
Abul Fazl, Akbamdma, vol. ii, Bib. Indica, Calcutta, 1873.
--------- , A ’in-i Akbari, vol. i, cd. Blochmann, Calcutta, 1867.
Nizamuddin Ahmad, Tabaqdl-i Akbari, vol. ii, cd. B. Dc, Bib. Indica, Calcutta, 1931.
Najahal-ul uru min Hazral-ul Quds, BM Or. 1362.
Nizami, Khamsa, BM Or. 12208.
Saiyid Ahmad Khan (ed.), Tuguk-iJahangiri, Ghazipur &. Aligarh, 1863-4.
Khwaja Kamgar Husaini, M a ’sir-iJahangiri, cd. Azra Alavi, Delhi, 1978.
M u‘tamad Khan, Iqbalnama-iJahangiri, Calcutta, 1865.
Salih Kanbu, ‘Amal-i Salih, vol. i, G. Yazdani, Bib. Indica, Calcutta, 1912.
‘Abdul Hamid Lahori, Bddshdndma, Bib. Indica, vol. ii, Calcutta, 1866-72.
Shaikh Farid Bhakkari, Zakhirat-ul Khwdnin, cd. Sycd Moinul Haq, Karachi, 1961.
M uhammad Waris, Badshdhndma, transcript at the Centre of Advanced Study, Depart
ment of History, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
C handrabhan Brahman, Chahdr Chaman, Aligarh Collection (AMU),y5rnya 293/63.
M uham m ad Kazim, ‘Alamgimdma, cd. Khadim Hussain and ‘Adul Hai, Bib. Indica.
1865-73.
Akhbardt darbdr mua'lla. Royal Asiatic Society, London (Microfilm in the Department of
History, AM U, no. 35).
Kalimdt-i Taxyabdl, ed. Inayatullah Khan, Aligarh Collection (AM U), Jarsiya (39), no. 278.
Munshi Malikzada, Nigdmama-i Munshi, MS at the Centre of Advanced Study, Depart
ment of History, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, MS no. 36.
Hedayatullah Bihari, Heddyat-ul Qawd'id, Aligarh Collection (AM U), Jarsiya 108.
Kewal Ram, Tazkirat-al Umard', Habibganj Collection (A M U J./a r^ a 32/57.
Original from
D igitized by
64 Bibliography
Shah Nawaz K han, Md'asir-al UmarS', vol. iii. cd. Abdur Rahim and Ashraf Ali, Bib.
Indica, Calcutta, 1888-91.
Jam es Skinner, Tashrih-al Aqwdm, BM Add. 27255.
European
The Commentary o f Father Monserrate, tr. J . S. Hoyland & annotated by N. Bannerji, C ut
tack, 1922.
W. Foster (ed.), Early Travels in India (reprint), Delhi, 1968.
F. Pelsaert, Jahangir's India, cd. & tr. W. H. Moreland and P. Gcyl (reprint), Delhi, 1972.
Travels o f Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608-67, vol. ii, Hakluyt Society, 2nd series, Lon
don, 1914.
Jean-B aptiste Tavernier, Travels in India, 1640-67, vol. i, cd. Crookc, London, 1925.
F. Bernier, Travels in the Mogul Empire, 1656-68, tr. A. Constable (reprint), Delhi, 1968.
The Indian Travels ofThevenot and Careri, tr. & ed. S. N. Sen, New Delhi, 1949.
John Marshall in India— Notes and Observations in Bengal, ed. S. A. K han, London, 1927.
G. M. Moraes (tr.), ‘Surat in 1663 as described by Fr. Manuel Godinho’, JR A S (Bom
bay), new series, vol. 27, pt. ii,June 1952.
The Diaries o f Streynsham Master, 1675-80, ed. R. C. Temple, Indian Series Records, Lon
don, 1911.
Jo h n Fryer, A New Account o f East India and Persia, being Nine Years' Travels, 1672-81, vol. ii,
ed. W. Crookc. London, 1909-15.
The Life o f the Icelander Jon Olafsson, vol. ii, tr. D. B. Philpotts, Hakluyt Society, 2nd scries,
London, 1931.
Alexander Hamilton, A New Account o f the East Indies, ed. W. Foster, London, 1930.
Modem Works
Arnold, T . W. and J . V. S. Wilkinson, The Library o f Chester Beatty: Catalogue o f the Indian
Miniatures, vol. iii, Bloomsbury, 1936.
A thar Ali, M. The Apparatus o f Empire (Awards o f Ranks, Offices and Titles to the Mughal Nobil
ity, 1574-1658), Delhi, 1985.
Briggs, M artin S., The Architect in History, Oxford, 1927.
Bussagli, Mario, Indian Miniatures, Milan, 1966.
Couscns, B., Medieval Temples o f the Dakhan, Archaeological Survey oflndia.
Crowe, Sylvia, S. Haywood, S. Jcllicoc and G. Patterson, The Gardens o f Mughul India, De
lhi, 1972.
Deppert, J . (ed.), India and the West, Delhi, 1983.
Dharam pal, Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century, Delhi, 1971.
Gregor, H. el al., Castles, London, 1977.
Harvey, J ., Man the Builder, London, 1973.
Havell, E. B., Indian Architecture, London, 1913.
Hill, Donald, A History o f Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times, London, 1984.
Hodivala, S. H., Studies in Indo-Muslim History, Bombay, 1939.
I bn Hasan, The Central Structure o f the Mughal Empire (reprint), Delhi, 1970.
Kramrisch, Stella, The Hindu Temple, Calcutta, 1946.
Original from
D igitized by
Bibliography 65
M ayer, L. A., Islamic Architects and their Works, Geneva, 1956.

M ichell, G., Architecture o f the Islamic World, London, 1978.
N ath, R., The Immortal Taj M ahal, Bombay, 1972.
Pope, A rthur Upham , Persian Architecture, London, 1965.
Q aisar, A. J ., The Indian Response to European Technology and Culture {a . d . 1498-1707), Delhi,
11982.
Raizuddin, M uham m ad, Kunz-al Tdrikh , Budaun, 1906.
Rizvi, A. A. and J . A. Flynn, Fathpur-Sikri, Bombay, 1975.
Sarkar, J . N., M ughal Administration, Calcutta, 1932.
Satish C handra, Medieval India (Society, theJagirdari Crisis and the Village) , Delhi, 1982.
Sharm a, R. S., Indian Feudalism, Calcutta, 1965.
Singer, Charles, et al., A History o f Technology, ii (reprint), Oxford, 1957.
Smith, E. W., The Moghul Architecture o f Fathpur Sikri, 4 vols., Allahabad, 1898.
Smith, V. A., Akbar— the Great Mogul (reprint), Delhi, 1962.
Stephen, C., Archaeology and Monumental Remains, Delhi, 1876.
Stuart, C. M. Villicrs, Gardens o f the Great Mughals, London, 1913.
Swaan, Wim, The Gothic Cathedral, London, 1969.
Tyulayev, S., Miniatures o f Babumama, Moscow, 1960.
Verma, S. P., A rt and M aterial Culture in the Paintings o f Akbar’s Court, Delhi, 1978.
Welch, S. C., Imperial Mughal Painting, London, 1978.
WulfT, Hans E., The Traditional Crafts o f Persia, Massachusetts, 1966.
Glossaries, Dictionaries, Surveys, etc.

Munshi Tck C hand, Bahdr-i ‘Ajam, Nawal Kishore, 1916.
F. Stcingass, Persian-English Dictionary, 1st Ind. cd., Delhi, 1973.
K han Sahab Syed Ahmad Dehlvi, Farhang Asijtya, vol. ii, Delhi, 1974.
The Encyclopaedia o f Islam , vol. iv, Leiden, 1978.
Zafarur Rahm an, Farhang Istalahat-i Peshawardn, 8 vols., Delhi, 1939-41.
George W att, A Dictionary o f Economic Products o f India, vol. iv (reprint), Delhi.
,
--------- The Commercial Products o f India , Delhi, 1978.
Archaeological Survey o f India (Annual Report), 1871-72 and 1909-10.
M uham m ad ibn D au’d M uhammad ibn M ahmud Shadiyabadi, Mifldh-ul fuzald’, BM
O r. 3299 (a .d . 1469).
Periodical Literature: Articles

Beveridge, H., ‘The Elephant Statues of Agra and D c\h \',J R A S , 1909, pp. 743-6.
--------- , ‘The Delhi Elephant Statues’, J R A S , 1913, pp. 1049-54.
Farrukh Jalali, ‘Inscriptions of Some Mughal Architects’, paper presented at the Seminar
a t Dharwar, held under the auspices of the Epigraphical Society of India, 1985.
Harvey, Jo h n H., ‘The Education of the Mediaeval Architect’, J R I B A , 3rd scries, vol.
L ll.J u n c 1945, pp. 230-3.
Irfan Habib, ‘Changes in Technology in Medieval India’, Studies in History, vol. ii, no. 1,
1980, pp. 15-39.
Original from
D igitized by
66 Bibliography
--------- , ‘Technological Changes and Society— 13th and 14th Centuries’, Presidential
Address, Medieval India Section, Indian History Congress, Varanasi, 1969.
Moreland, W. H., ‘Some Side-lights on Life in Agra, 1637-39’, JUPHS, vol. iii, pt. 1,
Dec. 1923.
Nahccd Khan, ‘Aristocractic Housing under Akbar: A Survey of the House of Abul Fazl
and Faizi at Fathpur Sikri’, presented at the Indian History Congress, Bombay ses
sion, 1980.
Nath, R., ‘Scrutiny of the Persian Data Related to the Builders of the Taj M ahal’, Indo-
Iranica, vol. xxxii, nos. 1 & 2, March & June 1979.
Nur Bakhsh, ‘Historical Notes on the Lahore Fort and its Buildings’, A SI (Annual Report),
1902-3.
--------- , ‘The Agra Fort and its Buildings’, ASI (Annual Report), 1903-04, pp. 164-93.
Pevsner, N., ‘The Term “Architect” in the Middle Ages’, Speculum, vol. xvii, 1942,
pp. 549-62.
Shelby, L., ‘The Role of the M aster Mason in Mediaeval English Building’, Speculum, voL
xxxix, no. 3, July 1964, pp. 387-403.
--------- , ‘The Geometrical Knowledge of Mediaeval M aster Masons’, Speculum, vol. 47,
pp. 395-422.
Sulaiman Nadvi, Sayyad, ‘The Family of the Engineers who Built the Taj Mahal and the
Delhi Fort\JB O R S , vol. 34, 1948, pp. 75-110.
Tucker, R. Froudc, ‘The Elephant Statues at Delhi’, JR A S, 1910, pp. 490-4.
Yasin Ansari, M., ‘Islamic Architecture in India’, Housing Science, vol. 4, no. 5, 1980,
pp. 429-40.
Zafar Hasan, ‘The Inscriptions of Dhar and M andu’, E lM , 1909-10.
Original from
D igitized by
Index
‘Abdussamad, executes painting on wall, 31-2 arches, 17

d b ka sh , 12, 27 Archimedes, 42
Abul Fazl, on buildings, 3, 7; on artisans, 12; on architect(s), holding ta ra h , 15, 28; status of, 34, 35,
bricks, 16-17; on building material, 17; cm 36, 40, 43; use of manuals, 39
articles of iron, 17; on gach sh irin , 19; on lime, 20; architecture, forms, styles and features, of, 1
on plastering, 21; on stone-fittings in Agra Fort, ‘Arif Qandahari, on construction work at Agra,
21-2; on stone-cutting, 24; on sawyers, 25; 10; list of workers given by, 12; number of
ignores iron-smith, 26; on d b ka sh , 27; on chdh k m workers given by, 13; on sang g k tU ila , 16; on
and g hota kh a r 32, on building regulations, 5, 7; mortar, 23; on gypsum and lime, 24
on woods, 18 a n a , 25
adze, see basola a n a ka sh , 12, 25
‘Afif, 19; on plastered walls, 19; on broken bricks, a n i, 25, 26
20; on m ortar and plaster, 23; on nff, 28 artisans, 11; their categories, functions and wages,
Aizal Khan, as £ w d a of Shah Jah an , 9 12; work discipline, 12-13; number o f workers,
Agra, 3, 5, 6; Fort, 7, 9, 13, 16, 23, 24, 46; 13
stone-cutters of, 13, 14, 16, 20, 22; Moti Masjid Asaf Khan, 11; collecting tarah prepared by
in, 29, 47 master-architects, 14
ih a k , 19 asas nih d d a n , 23
Ahalyabai, Queen, 18 Ashokan pillars, 30, 46
akaagar, 26 a sta rk d n , 21, 29
d ka a ja m a , 17 a starlab shinds, 14, 39
a h l-i qalam , 40 auger, see nihdrm
Ahmad (iis ta d ), chief architect of the Red Fort Aurangzeb, 9, 14, 38, 41
(Delhi) and Taj Mahal, 8, 37, 38; his son, awl, see nihdrm
Lutfullah, 37, 38; given title n a d it-a l ‘a sr, 38, 39, axe, see tin g a ri and ku lh d n
40, 41, 42 ‘Aziz Koka, 32
afar, 16
Akbar, 7, 8; his interest in construction work, Babur, number of workers employed by, 13;
10-11, 13, 21, 24, 26, 29, 32, 38, 40, 41, 46 inspecting laying-out of garden, 15, 32
‘Alauddin Khalji, employs 70 thousand workers, Badauni, 7
13; Barani on, 13 Baghdad, 14; naqsha of, 15
Aleppo, see Haleb Bahauddin, as lime burner, 8
Allahwardi Khan, governor of Delhi, 8, 10 B am boos (bamboo), 44
'a m a la w a f a 'l a - i *im d ra i, 6 b a n d rami, 25
Amir Khusrau, 19 baaad, 14, 28, 36, 39
anvil, 26 baas, 17
apprentice, 35 bdoTi, 32
16 Barani, on building construction, 13
aqtidas n a za r, 14, 39, 42 barm a, 25
arabesque, 32 barrows, wheel- and hand-, 28
Archaeological Survey of India, 45 basola, 25, 26, 28
archaeology, of Mughal monuments, 5; inadequa basoK , 28.
cy of, 33 b a za r m tu a q q a f 14

68 Index
Beglar, J.D ., and bias for Hindu architecture, Cunningham, Alexander, 5; on Agra Fort, 29
18-19
b iU a r ( s), 23 Daman, 44
bellows, see m u n ja kh and dhankni; Olafsson on, 26 Dara Shukoh, 41
Bernier, on climate and architecture, 1-3; on d d rig h a , 10, 11
thatching in Delhi, 17; on a good house, 32, 33, d a rig h e ‘im era t, Mir ‘Abdul Karim as, 10; Haider
46 Malik Kashmiri as, 10
Bhera, quarry of gaeh skdnn in, 19 d e rid g a r, 12, 25
b kn s, 18 Dawud Agha, 40
Biana, 13 Deccan, 14
Bihar, 28 Delhi, buildings in, 2, 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 27, 30, 38,
b ith a , 28 46, 47
‘blueprints’, 42 Dholpur, 13
boats, full of stone, 16 dhonsa, 27
bow-drill, see berm a d h a n kn i, 26
Broach, lime from, 20 £ n e r in , 17
Brown, Percy, 5 diver, see g h ite k h ir
brick, 16; kinds of, 17; pulverized, 20, 23; non- £ w e n , 9; of the b a jrita t, 9
baked, 25; of standard size and shape, 27, 44; dome, 16
-burner, see k h is t p e e ; -kiln, 27 (see p eea w a h );
-layer(s), 28, 36, 44; -pounder(s), 27 (see surkH elephants’ statues, 45, 46
kib) embosser, 24, 31
builders, see bonne engineers(s), 39, 47; see m uhandis
building, selection of site for and planning of, 14 Euclid, 42
bullock-cart driver, 12 Europe, workers’ wages in, 12; wheel-barrows in,
burnishing, of stones, 25 28, 39, 47
b v jita t, 9, 10
37
Ja rm a n ,
calligraphy, see k ite b e 23
Ja sU ,
Carlleyle, A.C.L., on Moti Masjid, 29 Fathpur Sikri, 5,6, 7,8,13; stones from, 24,27,31,
carpenters), 26, 44; also see d a rid g a r and najjcr 32, 45
carver, 31 Fazil Khan, supervisor of construction of Jam i‘
d id d e r, 33 Masjid of Delhi, 8; as kh a n som an, 9
chdh k e n , 32 Fergusson, Jam es, 5
C handra Bhan Brahman, 9 Ferozabad, 5
chopper, 17 Feroze Shah Tughlaq, 11, 19, 23, 30, 46
ch a res, 32 Finch, W., on use of stones and bricks in Agra, 17;
child labour, no evidence for, 12 on stone-cutting, 24
chimney, 25 Flynn, J . A., 5, 32
Chinese (traveller), on building construction in foundation-trench, see h eja r
Kashmir, 4 frescoes, 31
chisel, see tish a Fryer, J ., on coloured glass, 17
ch ib baruB, 30 furnace, 26
chob b a st, 30
c h in e , 19, 20, 21 g o ch , 19, 22
c h in a k e r , 13 g a ch keri, 21
c h in a p e e , 8, 27 ga ch s/u rin , 19
c h in e p u k h te , 20 g ir o , 18
‘Circus gate’ see H a th ip o l garden, 32; design, 33
d ay , 16, 17, 18, 21; bricks, 25 g e r i, 21
Cousens, H., 18 Ghairat Khan, governor of Delhi, 8, 10
Crucifixion, 31 Ghazi Beg, as n u r *im era t at Kabul, 9; at Lahore, 10

Index 69
(jo g ) g h u lu la ,16 Iradat Khan, supervisor of construction work,

g k ito k k u r, 12, 32 9 -10; governor of Kashmir, 10
g il, 16 iron, articles, 17, 22; nails, 24
g ilib a , 18 iron-smith(s), 26; see a k a n g a
g il k ir , 13 Isar Das, as m u to sa d d i ‘m o r a l, 9
g i l su rk k , 21 Isfahan, naqsha of, 15
25
g in k b a r f, Islamic-culture area, use of hand-barrows in, 28;
glass, lor windows, 17 scaffolding in, 30, 36, 40, 41, 42
Goa, 17 Istanbul, 40
W . 17
G ujarat, lime from, 20 jaggery, cakes/balls, 13; for making mortar, 20
g u lm e k k , 17
ja g ird a r, 10
gum, see sam gk. Jahangir, 8, 9, 10, 21, 31, 32, 46
Gwaiiar, g i n from, 21 Jahangirabad, pargana in Kashmir, 10
gypsum, 23, 27
Jaipur, 38
Ja i Singh II, 39
k a /a r, 23 Jami* Masjid, of Delhi, 8, 13
Haider Malik Kashmiri, as darogha 'm o r a l, 10 Jam una, 16, 23
Haleb, 17 ja r r sa q il, 30
ka lq a , 17 Jaw aharm al, iru 'm a r, 14
ka lq a h a i a h a , 22 journeym an, 36
h a lfo ittn jir d o n o a za , 17
kasitam , 19
K a'ba, 23
Hamid (u slo d ), 8, 41, 42
Kabul, 9
kam m al(% ), 28, 30
k o k , 17
hammer, 25
k a k d ik e , 17
H ar R a i\ as m u sh r if of royal buildings, 11
k o k g il, 18, 21
Hathipol gate, at Agra, 9, 45
Kala Buij, in Lahore Fort, 31
ka u g , 27, 33
ko n ka r, 19; as source of lime, 20
k a v tli, 14
ka ra g a ka n -i ‘m o r a l, 6
H a veil, E. B., 5; on Akbar, 10
k a n g a ra n -i “m o r a l, 11
hawker, selling snacks to artisans, 12
ko rkh a n a . 9
hemp, see son
ka s-ka n ym (k k a s k k a n a ), 2
Herbert, Thomas, on paintings in Lahore Fort, 31
Khairullah m uhandis, son of Lutfullah m uhandis, 38
kxndsa p a rd a g , 14, 38, 39
Khaltlullah Khan, 8
k b i t , 13, 21
kk a lisa , 7
Hisar Feroza, 23
kka n d a q , 23
housing, middle class, 17
Khandesh, temple in, 8
humanism, 35
khan som an, 9
Khidmatgar Khan, a m t‘m a r, 38
I bn Hasan, 8 k k ilw o t kka n a , paintings on wall of, 32
Ibn Khaldun, on crafts and building construction, k k is t, 7, 16
1; his advice to architects, 14 k k is t p a t, 25
y i n , 12 k k is t ta ra sk, 25
Iltutmish, 19 k k ir , 20
ImimudcGn rtyd g i, son of Lutfullah m uhandis, 38 k kw a b g a k , Shah Jahan's, in Lahore Fort, 14, 31,37
‘m o r a l k k is s a , 37 k in o , 28
a r f i , 28 kito b a , 32
inlayer(s), 24 Kol, 13
Institute of the Oriental Academy of Sciences of k u l k in , 25
Uzbekistan, 15 k u lu k k ko b , 27

70 Index
labour: (female), in painting, 12, 27, 28; (child), 23; carried on head, 30; mortar-and-lime mak
no evidence for, 12; skilled and unskilled, 28 ers, 13, 27
Lahore, 9, 23; Fort, 31, 37, 38 Moti Masjid, 29
Lahori, on lime from Patiali, 20; on ta r ij , 23; on mould(s), 25
wall paintings, 31 m u 'a llim , 36
lead (molten), to fill in crevices between stones, 22 Muhammad ‘AH rtyd& , son of Khairullah m uhan-
lever principle, 31 d is, 39
lime, kinds of, 19, 20, 22, 24, 44; from Gujarat, 47; M uhammad Shah, 39
imperial monopoly in, 20; -burner, 19, 27; -kiln, m u handis, 14, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41
see p a zd w a k , 27; -mortar, introduced by immig muM tar/a ‘im a ra t, 13
rant Muslims, 18; -stone 19 M ukarram at Khan, as supervisor of Taj Mahal, 8;
lo ta , 29 as d iw d n of b u ju td t, 9; as m r sdm dn, 9 ; ta n k sent
Lutfullah, son of u std d Ahmad, 37, 38, 41, 42 to, 14; as governor of Delhi, 14
m u n a kb a tkd r, 24
MahanadT, 17 Mundy, Peter, on marble from Narwar, 16
Mahmud Gujarati, 22 m u n fa kh , 26
Mahram Khan, m e‘m ar , 38 mussj, 17
Makrana, marble from, 16, 27 m urchal, 14
Malik GhazT, as shakna of royal buildings, 6 m usam m an Baghdadi, 14
mallet, see k u la k h kob m u sh r if ‘im d ra t-i p d sb h d ki, 11
M a'm ur Khan, constructs Jahangir’s palace at mu ta saddijfd n -i ‘im a ra t, 6
Lahore, 8 -9 M uttalib Khan, replaces Mir ‘Abdul Karim as mir
m ansab, 40 ‘im a ra t at Lahore, 10
m a n sa b d a n , 10
m ansab m e‘m a n , 37 n a ’i, see and s ir k i
p a ta l
marble, as source of lime, 20; from Rajasthan, 47 n a d ir-a l ‘a sr, title of u std d Ahmad, 38
m arjdn, 16 n a jjd r, 12, 25
m a sd lik ‘isndrat, 16 naqab za d a n (mining), 7
mason, 35, 36; -architect, 41; -builder, 36; -contrac naqqdsk, 24
tor, 41; master-mason(s), 35, 36, 38, 40 n a qska, 14; of Baghdad and Isfahan, 15; see also
Mayer, L.A., 36; on Islamic architects, 40 tarak
m a zd u r, 13 Narbada, 17
Mecca, 23 Narwar, marble from, 16
s i W r , 7; u std d , 8, 36, 37, 38, 40; Ibn K haldun’s Nath, R., 5; on use of pulleys, 30
advice to, 14; qualifications of, 14, 28, 36; Naushahra, 46
associated with administration, 37, 38, 39, 41; n ik a rn i, 25
Shah Jahani, 41 Nizamuddin Bakhshi, 7
Mir ‘Abdul Karim, as supervisor of Taj Mahal, 8; nobles, and building construction, 3 -4
as d iw d n of bujm tdt, 9; as m b som an, 9; his Nurgarh, 14
inscription at Lahore, 9; as ddrbgha ‘im a ra t, 10; as
m b 'im a ra t at Lahore, 10 Olafsson, J ., on bellows, 26
m ir bahr, his functions, 7 oyster-shells, 17
mr ban, 7
m ir ‘im a ra t, 6; functions of, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 40, 41 painter(s), 31
m ir sam au, 8; functions of, 9; Iradat Khan as, 10 painting, relating to building construction, 4, 5 -6 ,
moat, see kka n d a q 7, 10, 11; female labour in, 12; ta ra k shown in,
m okra k a sk i, 25 15; thatched houses in, 17; mortar-making
Monscrrate, on Akbar’s interest in construction, process in, 18, 24; tools and techniques in,
11; on Akbar’s buildings, 13; on Agra Fort, 21; 24-5; stone-cutters in, 24-5; brick-kiln, no
on prefabricated articles, 27; on elephants’ depiction of in Mughal, 25; sawyers in, 25;
statues, 45 carpenters in, 26; bellows in, 26; on mortar
m o rtar ingredients for, 18; lime, 18, 19; s a r ij, 21, making, e tc , 27; watermen in, 27; ramps in, 30;

In d ix 71
scaffolding, none depicted in Mughal, 30; lever Ruhullah Khan, 9

principle in, 30; sculptor’s work in, 31; wall-
painting in, 31; no arabesque in, 32; gardens in, sa b o t, 7
32, 33; elephants’ statues in, 45 u U c.fi, 20
palette, 31 sa d a ka r, 12, 14
palm-leaves, for thatching, 17 Sa’dullah Khan, 8; as war Maun, 9
P * , 30 Safar Aqa (Khudawand Khan), uses iron clamps,
Paris, 21 22
p c * , 17 sa fid k a ri ,
21
Patiali, lime from, 20 sa g w a n , 17
p a ttk a r ka cJdata, 19 sa k ib , 36
p c fd w a k , 20, 25 s ik ib - i iktim d m , Q isim Khan as, 7
Pelsaert, F., on buildings in Agra, 3; on nobles’ ta m g h , 20
neglect of buildings, 3 -4 ; on plaster, 21; on ta n , 20, 21
polishing plaster with agate, 29 sa n d a lkcm , 21
Persia, 19; use of s i r q in, 21, 44 sandalwood, 17
Persian wheel, >ee siq iy a sa n g , su rk k , fjo rd , so f i d , siy a k , Musa, a b ri, Maryam,
Phidias, 45 ya skm , 16
pillars, 29; Ashokan, 30, 46 sangbar, 24
plane, see reads sang g h tl ila , 16
plaster/plastering, 18, 19, 21, 29 sang m aktabd, 16, 20
Plato, on architects, 34 sang m arm ar, 16,20
plumb-line, 29 (see sa g U ) sa n g ta ra sk, 12, 24, 45
polishing, of stooes, 25 tapidkari, see safidkan
prefabricated articles, 26-7 s a fiy a , 32, 33
pulleys, 30, 32 s a g il, 29
sa ra m a d -i m ttm aran, 8, 9, 37
fa ta ? , 19, 20, 21 ta r b a r ik ‘im a ra t, Iradat Khan as, 10
f tf * , 25 sa rka rd a ra n -i ‘im a ra t, 6
f itib k d n , 25 s a r ij, 21, 23
Q aiim Khan, as mxr bakr a barr, 7; as sihib-i saw, see ams; hand-, see a m
iktimdm, 7; as governor of Agra Fort, 7, 10. sawyer, see ana ka sk
quicklime, 20 scaffold (scaffolding), 30, 47
scribe, 11
rads, 28 sculptor(s), 31, 46
Rai’ Govardhan Surajdhwaj, duvan of Asaf Khan, sea-shells, 20
11; as scribe under H ar Rai', 11 s ir , 25
r i j , 28, 29 Sewa Ram (a s lid ) , 41, 42
ram p, 29, 30, 47; also sec rapta skd d u rw a n , 23
reads, 25 Shahabuddin Ghori, 19
rang T tkk la x, 23 Shah Buij, of Lahore Fort, 9
npu, 29 Shah Jah an , 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 29, 37, 46
nuts, 28 Shahjahanabad, 21
r ig , 28 ska kn a ch a la k, 11
Red Fort (Delhi), 3, 8, 9, 14, 27, 38, 42 Shelby, L. 39, 42
reed: -glue, 20; -screens, 17 sk isk a k d i Halebi, 17
r A k ta , 19, 23 sieve, 27
Renaissance, 35 rtn gU , 21
n y a f i, term for architects, 38 Sinan, Turkish architect, 40
Rizvi, A.A., 5, 32 sirisk kaJa, 20
m i , 20 siH n , 17
rodnaddr, 12 sisa u wood, 17

72 Index
site-overseers (supervisors), II trowel, 28, 29

II
Sm ith, E.W ., 5, 8, 31 feU sd m -s Hmiret, 5
Sm ith, V.A., on artisans, 8 U jjain, 39
spade, 24 mOii, 8, 14, 36, 37; sm'mar, 37; Sew i Rim, 41. See
spandrel(s), 31 ■Un Ahmad and H im id.
staff (building), 6
step-ladders, 6 value-system, M ughal, 40, 43
stkipaR, 39 V aranasi, 38
stone: cutters, 13,24,25,26; doors, 16; masons, 28 vaulted roofing, 17
Stuart, V ., 33 Virgin M ary, 31
Sulaim an Nadvi, 42 V itruvius, on architects, 3 4 -5 , 39
sumke, 25
Surat, 7, 20 wages, o f Indian artieam , 12; o f European a rti
serkti, 20, 21, 27 sans, 12
seriki kib, 27 waggons, 20
w all-painting, 31
tib ia e, 17 W aris (author of BH skO em m ), 8, 9
T aj M ahal, 3, 8, 9*, Tavernier oo, 13, 47; terak of, w ater -carrier (waterm an), see A look, -chute, S3;
14; wooden model of, 15, 23, 38 -proof construction, 21, 23; -supply, 32
tif, 17 W att, G ., on stone buildings in south India, 18; on
terak, tarate, 14; Asaf K han’s interest in teriki, 14; hme and keeker, 20; on sand and pulverised
pictorial evidence o f tank, 15; contribution o f bricks, 20-1
im m igrant M uslims in India, 15; wooden tarsi, wax-cloth, 44
15, 37, 38, 39, 42 well: -cleaner, see gkite kker, -digger, 32
Tavernier, J.B ., on the Taj M ahal, 13,47; oo lime W ensinck, A .J ., on K a’ba’s skidenm s, 23
from G ujarat, 20 white-washing, 18, 19, 21
T erry, Edward, 21 windlass, 30, 32
tiske, 25 wnndow-panes, 17
Thevenot, Jean de, on houses in Surat, 44 wood: as building m aterial, 17; and tim ber, 44
dies, 44 wooden cart, 46
tin-coating, 19 wooden model, 15
tiegeri, 25 work discipline, 12-13
tongs, 26 Wulfi; Hans E., 6, 19, 36
tracer(s), 24
treadm ill, 30, 32 Zafisr-ur Rahm an, his ferkeeg, 6

Google
2. Construction ofa palace (early eighteenth century, probably a copy of
,,g,t,zed by G O O g f e ^ UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

3. Fathpur Sikri complex being built.
Akbamama, Victoria &Albert Museum, London,no. IS2-1896,91/117.
bedby G O O g l e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

4. Agra For! being,buill.
zedby G O O g k UNIVERSmf OF^HI

G oogle
2-18%,45/117.
Google
»yGoogle
G oogle
I. Brick kiln (ad 1825).
James Skinner. Tashik-tl Afwim, BMAdd. 27255, sketch no. 55 (p. 254).
Digitizedby G O O g l e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Hi. Female sieving lime (detail, Plate 4).
it*. Making lime mortar (detail, Plate 6).
G O O g le UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
mi. Block ofstone being carried up a ramp (detail, Plate 4).
till. Block ofstone being levered up (detail, Plate 4).

b>V jO O gle UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Building Construction in Mughal India The Evidence From Painting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Construction in Mughal India The Evidence From Painting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

AHSAN JAN QAISAR

CENTRE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN HISTORY

© Ahsan Jan Qaisar 1988

Phototypeset by Taj Services Ltd., Nokia

D igitized by Goo Original from

PLATES following page 72

I am heavily indebted to Miss Betty Tyers (formerly Senior Museum

Commenting on crafts in general, Ibn Khaldun writes:

seems to have held a theory bearing on the climate-architecture connex­

The grandeur and style of India’s Muslim monuments have always

analysis with regard to building construction is still awaited. The third

Lahore.30 An inscription over an archway at the palace put up by

D igitized by Goo Original from

Khan, the jdgirddr oipargana Jahangirabad (Kashmir), was once entrusted

D igitized by Google Original from

D igitized by L j O O g L c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

as a binding material; it is only used as waterproof cement, and I am doubtful if even

the period of Sultan Shahabuddin Ghor.33 It is no wonder, then, if ‘Afif

ployed, a substance found more adapted than sand to the peculiarities of

The first operation was the digging of foundation-trenches (hafar), after an

broad wooden plank, resting on a beam-and-post structure. The manner

It is unfortunate that no other description of medieval Indian bellows is

Digitized by Google Original from

cated article: a cistern (hauz) prepared at Makrana, carved out of a single

But our paintings do not bear Monserrate out at all. Prefabricated

and baskets full of mortar were carried on the labourers* heads to

Plastering (astarkdn) is depicted in Plate 5 (centre, right). The plasterer

A similar observation was made by Cunningham about the outer walls

tcned to two bamboo posts in an arched gateway, can be observed in

Villiers Stuart approvingly adds that no 'magnificence* could be more

Vitruvius sets out the following curriculum for students of architecture:4

Now, let us turn to the situation in medieval Islamic societies outside

D igitized by Google Original from

D igitized by Goo Original from

been completed by 1600, the appointment of mir ‘imdrat must be taken as

ustdd Ahmad in the construction of the Red Fort. Although Sulaiman

D igitized by Google Original from

T o sum up: medieval building craftsmen produced ‘potential architects*

D igitized by Google Original from

Thevenot on the Houses o f Surat*

4. C f.A ’tn, i, p. 441.

With regard to the Taj Mahal, Tavernier tells us:

1 Tavernier, Travels in India, i, ed. V. Ball (reprint), 1977, p. 91.

30. H. Cousens, Medieval Temples o f the Dakhan, ASI, p. 35.

57. W att, Economic Products, ii, p. 152.

8. Tabaqdt-i Akbari, p. 179.

33. Satish Chandra, Medieval India , Delhi, 1982, p. 67.

M ayer, L. A., Islamic Architects and their Works, Geneva, 1956.

Glossaries, Dictionaries, Surveys, etc.

Periodical Literature: Articles

‘Abdussamad, executes painting on wall, 31-2 arches, 17

D igitized by Google Original from

D igitized by Google Original from

(jo g ) g h u lu la ,16 Iradat Khan, supervisor of construction work,

D igitized by Google Original from

D igitized by Google Original from

scaffolding, none depicted in Mughal, 30; lever Ruhullah Khan, 9

D igitized by Google Original from

site-overseers (supervisors), II trowel, 28, 29

D igitized by Google Original from

,,g,t,zed by G O O g f e ^ UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

bedby G O O g l e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

seems to have held a theory bearing on the climate-architecture connex